Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, 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". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates many of them 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 may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, 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 the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase 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, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
