Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and 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 EU question had been settled by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU 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, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured 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 be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
