Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed 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 darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, 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 resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
