Back in 2018, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. 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". 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 laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to 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 unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in 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. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
