Back in 2018, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
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: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national 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 measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
