Seven years ago, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 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 leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
