Back in 2018, a mere eight words to energize the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch to become leader but simply an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
