Back in 2018, a mere eight words to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates 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. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to recall the impact just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways 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.
