Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. 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.
During that deeply polarized period 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. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with an 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 ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion 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 undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
