Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, Keir Starmer, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. 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 trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and 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 preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
