Seven years ago, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches 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 in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this 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 seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose 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 significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements 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 much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain 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 with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, 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 the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
