Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
