Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again 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 Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an undependable ally, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
