Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists 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 on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, 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 Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to recall the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
