Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts 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 the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on 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 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 an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
