Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
