Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches 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 in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished 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 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an undependable ally, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
