Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions 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 than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel 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, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately 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 Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving 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 a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, 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 the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
