Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to energize a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the impact just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
