Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was falling out of love with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters 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. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring 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 rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage that leaving the EU has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
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 minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly about the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he views as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of immigration. It contains only one reference to Britain, placed beside a suggestion that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk & A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
