Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Issues
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 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
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 on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
