Back in 2018, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. 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 would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect just a few words had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
