Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. 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". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain 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 Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British 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 aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
