Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text 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 seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining 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, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still 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 across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember 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 himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
