Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show the party was falling out of love with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. 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 the prepared script like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position & Closed Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out 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, despite survey data indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot in UK politics, the cap which was firmly shut since Brexit is beginning to rattle again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up the rhetoric regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
The deputy prime minister muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, the government reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility 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 currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Memory
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 Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
