Back in 2018, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, 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 measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the “option” 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 now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain 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 risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
