Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, 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". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way 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. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an 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 relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators 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.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
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 effort to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered 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.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options 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.
