Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates many of them 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 Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US 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 from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
