Back in 2018, a mere eight words to ignite the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. While not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase were greeted with wild cheering as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He wasn't really accustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the Europhile sentiments of his party. In just one speech, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a risk-taker who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Closed Issues
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to be an embattled Labour leader. While EU relations is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was firmly shut since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in low decimal points.
Internal Pressure and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is among those trying to overcome long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
The deputy prime minister muses openly about the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, 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 declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the trade pacts with the US, which he views as signature achievements of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now 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 former EU partners are less interested in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration may interfere in our politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this renders the US an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo from the Past
All of which brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to keep open the “option” of remain being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender 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 Clear Risk and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to recall the impact just a few words had for him in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
