Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text 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 within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials 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, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
