Seven years ago, a mere eight words to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
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. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led British officials that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the impact that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
