Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering 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 producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over 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.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
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 clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
