Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK 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 their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with 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 ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, in those days, 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 have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters 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 big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
