Back in 2018, it took just eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses having such an effect. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Issues
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While Europe may not be the central crisis in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.