Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "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 always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Closed Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises 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 pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite 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. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, 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 demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing 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 that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
