Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for 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 producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, the cap which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation 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.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document asserts Europe faces cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo 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 merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
