Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. 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 like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining 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 many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. 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 new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- 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.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. 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 are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
