Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave 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 the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits 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 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 has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways 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 securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind 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 part of a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
