🔗 Share this article

Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.

As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. 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". But context is everything.

During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.

The Shift of Stance and Settled Issues

Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.

Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.

Pressure Building on the EU

Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.

Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.

And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.

Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals

The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.

David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.

Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.

Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism

Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.

Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.

1. Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
2. Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
3. Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.

An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations

This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.

However, instead of deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.

Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018

This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.

Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.

Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.

The Obvious Risk and A Wise Memory

The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, 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 that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.