Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
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". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Issues
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 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, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
