Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if 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 again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
