Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above 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 championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
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 to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still 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, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly 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, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter 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 simply an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
