Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. 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, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on 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 remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, 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 Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to recall the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
