Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to energize a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed 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, departing from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge 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 would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
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, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric 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 how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
All of which brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
Maya Chen is a freelance writer and urban enthusiast with a passion for documenting city life and cultural shifts.
