Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches 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 in 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
