Seven years ago, it took just eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, 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.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying 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 above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at 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 talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves 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 effect just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
