Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y 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 be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea 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 fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo 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 merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
