Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Issues
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 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
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 young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
