Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 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 Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited 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 from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, 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 convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders 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 Echo from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
