Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, 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 for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. 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.
