Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period 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 Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, 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 a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts 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 repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize 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 scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again by warning 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 Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent of him to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
