Back in 2018, a mere eight words to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, 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". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. One idea would be to announce the start of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning rejoining a European customs area could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of sectors, like environmental standards.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain to join a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced British officials that European nations have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers is worried that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters are to be found.
It would be prudent of him to recall the effect that a short phrase had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
