Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
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". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge 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 – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Closed 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 to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU 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 minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
