Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches 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 of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
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, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly 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 actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, 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 Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
