Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments 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 key seats, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions 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 left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling 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 position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
