Back in 2018, it took just eight words to electrify the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He wasn't really accustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Issues
Since then, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week supported an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea involves declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” because of Muslim migration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that aligning closer with Europe would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she won’t discuss her stance regarding a customs pact as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Clear Danger & A Prudent Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to remember the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
