Seven years ago, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – 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 Shift in Position and Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an undependable ally, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
