Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Closed Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates 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 the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort 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 currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
