Seven years ago, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. 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". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to 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 repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains only one reference of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her position on a customs union as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
