Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and 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 EU question had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining 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 polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a 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 once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, 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 fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried 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 brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
