Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, 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". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, 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 Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect that a short phrase 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.
