Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to energize a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words 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, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in key seats, even if survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool to criticize the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions 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 left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels last summer provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has led UK negotiators that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document & Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims 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 may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch to become leader but simply an effort to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations which the PM ought to consider; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
