Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, 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 would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
