Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 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 focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, 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, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly about the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
