Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. 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.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
