Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed 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 seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently 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, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
