Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates many of them 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 be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed 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 Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt 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 similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within 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 desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.