Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. 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 darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question had been settled by the 2019 general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric 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 is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth program for young people by which youths can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo from the Past
This situation brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, 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 note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Aides to 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 “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. 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 are to be found.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
