Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British 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 about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy 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 Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe 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 returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” 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 be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
