Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed 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 in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage 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 how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement 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.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
