Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. 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 Shift in Position and Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had for him seven years ago. 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.
