Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, 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". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, 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 micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
