Seven years ago, it took just eight words to electrify a Labour conference and to show Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause 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 speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 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 over 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 political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance and Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While EU relations may not be 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 about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk and A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
