Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates 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. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, 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.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
