Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, 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". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding 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.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
