Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to energize a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet 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 opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, 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 last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly 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, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
