Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for 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. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
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 Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
