Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out 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, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still 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 thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Memory
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 are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
