Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
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 central crisis of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, 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, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. 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 Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, 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 “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
