Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, 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". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal 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 minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
