Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase 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 was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates 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 be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language 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 now rarely mentions 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 a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism 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, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent 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 Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
