Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. 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 in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
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, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
