Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly 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 voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves 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 for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
