Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
