Seven years ago, a mere eight words to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – 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 and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While 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.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining 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.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing 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 a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, 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 the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
