Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. 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.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly 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 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to 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 because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
