Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
