Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. 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". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare 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 forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
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 endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. 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 the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
