Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, 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.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Closed Issues
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over 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 forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished 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 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that European nations 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 the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
