Seven years ago, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed 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 the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating 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 grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, 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.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect 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 explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
