Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs 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 quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Reminder
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 the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
