Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although 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 to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
