Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. 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 like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – 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 Shift of Stance and Closed Issues
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 was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join 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 and are more focused on demonstrating 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 a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
