Seven years ago, it took just eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, 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 in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note 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.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways 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.
