Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, 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 deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, 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 again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
