Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to 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. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy 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, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, 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 EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling 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 regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out 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 remember the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
