Seven years ago, it took just eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Closed Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While 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.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
