Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was 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 seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU 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 Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals 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 recall the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
