Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
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". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent of him to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways 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.
