Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to energize a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Issues
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among 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 for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words 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 prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
