Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into 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, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in 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 joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of 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 have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
