Back in 2018, a mere eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. 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 a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up 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 the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
