Seven years ago, a mere eight words to energize the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal 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 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement 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 lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America 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.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
