Back in 2018, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair 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 are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
