Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Closed 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 was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat 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, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning 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 run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further 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 position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger 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 the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
