Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. 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.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this 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 pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition 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 because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
