Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying 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 above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, 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 consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can move 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, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
