Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s 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.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with 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. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
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 powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
