Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In 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 Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document & Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
