Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
