Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & 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 merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
