Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence 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. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle 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 now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller 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 in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water 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.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
