Back in 2018, it took just eight words to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position & Closed Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can move 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, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists 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 next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving 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 a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders America 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 and The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact that a short phrase 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 himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
