Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. 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 the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Settled Debates
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 declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, 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 Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect 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 himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
