Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister 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, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
