Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Closed Issues
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
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 firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning 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, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect just a few words had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways 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.
