Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding remain as an option". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and 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 general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain 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 cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside 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 renders America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one 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 in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
