Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying 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 Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, 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 ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
