Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to energize a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. 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 focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners 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 some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent of him to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
