Seven years ago, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
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 the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits 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 firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one 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 for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
