🔗 Share this article

Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.

When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.

During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.

The Evolution of Stance and Settled Debates

In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.

Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.

A Lid That Rattles on the EU

However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.

Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.

Nevertheless, 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 micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.

Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas

The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.

David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.

While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, 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 securing a new electoral mandate.

Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism

Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.

Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.

1. First, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
2. Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
3. Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.

A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Calculations

This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.

But, far from concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.

Leadership Speculation & The Echo of 2018

This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.

Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.

Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.

The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Reminder

The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.

It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect that a short phrase 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 personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.