Back in 2018, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats 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 would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into 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 indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. 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 an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister 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 an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement 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, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, 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 regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
