Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, 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 future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
