Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses 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 in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer 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.
