Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with wild cheering 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". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance and Closed Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most 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 in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
