Back in 2018, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, 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 Shift of Stance & Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor 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 the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, 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 micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
