Back in 2018, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, 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". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script like this 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 Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, 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 be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
