Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending 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 for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
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 merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
