Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly 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 wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
