Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out remain as an option". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and 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 to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning 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
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was 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 caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal 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.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
