Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. 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.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Closed Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after 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 commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- 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 keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further 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 Obvious Danger & A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
