Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to energize a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the words met 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 producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from the prepared script like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Settled Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, the tables have turned and Starmer is now to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations may not be the central crisis of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and is still his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is among those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the clear advantages of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention to Britain, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the possibility 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 now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to recall the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
