Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. 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 of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass 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 clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating 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 Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
