Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge commitments that ruled out re-entry into 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 survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen once more.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains measured in fractions of a percent.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people by which young people can move between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the powerful finance committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, insists the red lines are still in place, there are ways to work around them. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made much harder because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure in talks has led British officials that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to foster the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the impact just a few words had on his career seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
