🔗 Share this article

Seven years ago, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.

When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.

During that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats over the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he later succeeded.

The Evolution of Stance & Closed Issues

In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into 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 survey data 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 face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen again.

Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.

And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.

Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas

The chancellor is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.

The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.

While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.

Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts

However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.

It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.

1. First, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
2. Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has led British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
3. Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.

An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations

This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.

However, instead of deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.

Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018

This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.

Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.

Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.

The Obvious Danger & A Wise Reminder

The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.

It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.