Seven years ago, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying 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 pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – 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 Shift of Stance and Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, 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 that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led 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.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried 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 brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. 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 are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
