Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted 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 wasn't really accustomed to his addresses 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, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, 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, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
