Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches 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 like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit 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. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits 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.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us 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 possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
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 Obvious Danger and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
