Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, 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 on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space 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 EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
