Back in 2018, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up 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 how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, 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 thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister 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.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments 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 as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
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 risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open 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 Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet 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 refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember 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, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
