Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
