Back in 2018, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing 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 joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
