Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize 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 – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
