Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves 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 Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
