Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase 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 wasn't really accustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Issues
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in British politics to encourage the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a group of senior ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
