Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
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 to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU 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 the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & 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 reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
