Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period 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. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
