Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over 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, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing 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.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about 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 voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
