Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates 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 last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of 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 Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, 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 remember the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
