Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question 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 EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if EU relations may not be the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. 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 only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
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 of him to remember the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
