Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Issues
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates many of them 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 Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation that leaving the EU 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 sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select 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 red lines are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of 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 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.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to recall the effect just a few words had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
