Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. 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, departing from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters 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 major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
