Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous 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 in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.