Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, 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". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU 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 once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages 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 customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
