Seven years ago, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly 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, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an undependable ally, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, 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 Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
