Back in 2018, it took just eight words to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
All of which 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 preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
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 EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
