Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s 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, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. A proposal involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood 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 much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us 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 “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
