Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed 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. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
