Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in 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: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Closed Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, 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, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly about the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender 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 Danger and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
