Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments 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 & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
