Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge 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 seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Settled 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 to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly 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 the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts 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 three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise 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 that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
