Back in 2018, a mere eight words to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. 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 his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Closed Issues
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding 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, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration 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 brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
