Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” 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, despite polling evidence indicates many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an undependable ally, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
