Seven years ago, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses 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 in 2018, straying 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 key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position & Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister 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 an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
