Seven years ago, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way 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 pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations is no longer 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 ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, 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 resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- 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 Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, 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 a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
