Back in 2018, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them 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 party leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
