Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on 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.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent 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 the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
