Seven years ago, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal 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 significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine 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 several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest 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, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter 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 for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
