Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
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. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly 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 the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people 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 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 customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, 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 the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
