Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time 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 leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, 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 agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
