Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric 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 his primary goal 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 between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes 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, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out 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 remember the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
