Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to ignite the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time 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 Brexit voters in key constituencies over the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he later succeeded.
The Shift in Position and Closed Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains 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 compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling program for young people allowing youths can travel between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries are still in place, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he views as key accomplishments of his premiership.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK 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 offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes only one reference of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this renders the US an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a group of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her position on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them personally, before someone else adopt them as their own.
