Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU 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 a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent 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 makes them his – or her – own.
