Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, 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". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. 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 a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose 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 between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe 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, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
