Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade 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 key seats, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in 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 sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
