Back in 2018, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Closed 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 EU question had been settled by the previous year’s general election. 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 key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe may not be 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 the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
