Back in 2018, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves 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 seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits 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 joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
