Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over 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 most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations 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, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
