Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
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 of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving 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 Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes 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.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent 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 personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
