Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to energize a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. 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 the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, 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 led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
