Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, 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.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift in Position 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 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 been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, 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, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure 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.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
