Back in 2018, a mere eight words to ignite a Labour conference and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported 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 Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Reminder
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 are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
