Seven years ago, it took just eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation that leaving the EU 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 is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of 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 travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, 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 the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent 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 prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
