Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now 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 firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people 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, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal 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 to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements 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.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
