Seven years ago, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Closed Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, 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 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 relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways 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.
