Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to electrify the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses 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 left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing 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 has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led British officials that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, 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 probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
