Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to energize a Labour conference demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Issues
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on proving 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 a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere 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 fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
