Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted 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 speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on proving 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 grounds for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” 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 stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
