Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Closed Issues
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered 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 future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
