Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, 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 deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge 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 seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
