Seven years ago, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 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 of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject 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 for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
