Back in 2018, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
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 darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Settled Debates
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 declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national 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 ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, 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 former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
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 clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, 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 and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
