Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize 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 the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. 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 Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner 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 Wise Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
