Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool 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.
Nevertheless, 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 minor adjustments so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.