Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
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 EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves 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 prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
