Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, 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 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, 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 the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
