Seven years ago, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining 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 suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language about the devastation 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 seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains 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, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
