Back in 2018, it took just eight words to energize the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water 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 the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground 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 for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
