Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. 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.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen 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 his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
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 significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch 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 refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, 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 of him to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
