Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU 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 is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding 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 joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal 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 undependable ally, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
