Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour 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. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this 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 Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited 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 and Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
