Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU 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 between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe 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 Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, 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, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to recall 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.
