Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves 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 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 personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
