Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way 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 pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, 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 consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national 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 relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, 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 offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
