Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text 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 within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts 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 consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, 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 for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU 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 remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact that a short phrase 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, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
