Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed 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 deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees 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. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on 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 keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind 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 want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
