Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge 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 target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining 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, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
