Seven years ago, a mere eight words to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out 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 polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years 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. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. 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 recall the effect 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 himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
