Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU 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 Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on 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 a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
