🔗 Share this article

Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.

When the noise subsided, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.

During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.

The Shift of Stance & Closed Debates

Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.

Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.

Pressure Building on the EU

Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.

The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.

Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.

Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals

Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between Britain and Europe to study or work.

David Lammy muses openly about the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.

While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.

The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts

Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.

It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.

1. First, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, including the environment.
2. Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
3. Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.

An Alarming Strategy and Strategic Calculations

This strange and concerning document claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.

But, far from concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.

Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018

All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” 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, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.

Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.

The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Reminder

The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.

It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.