Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Closed Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates many of them 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. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly 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 thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea 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 Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners 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 the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves 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 wise for Starmer to remember the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
