Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, 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". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text 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 key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite 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 Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation 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 his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with 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 ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water again by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an effort to preserve the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
