Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, 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 pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite 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 party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
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 the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
