Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, 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, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
