Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed 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 darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender 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 Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
