Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, 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 previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, 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 minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. A proposal 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 Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Ghost of 2018
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known 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 stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
