Seven years ago, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
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". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” 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 polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations may not be 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 the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, 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 resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements 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.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, 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.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent of him to recall the effect just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
