Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways 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, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
