Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Closed 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 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves 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 Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- 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 and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to recall the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
