Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
