Seven years ago, it took just a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
During that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this grey-suited shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance and Settled Debates
Since then, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. During the most recent campaign, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. And, if EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation that leaving the EU has inflicted on the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending every cabinet meeting, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
Yet, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again by warning a return to a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he thinks any customs union agreement is now much harder because his ministers busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Strategy & Geopolitical Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction because of immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that Donald Trump’s administration will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers is worried that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Succession Chatter & The Echo of 2018
This situation returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated that address was not a pitch for the leadership but merely an effort to keep open the possibility of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on Downing Street have noticed that Wes Streeting, widely considered would stand in any leadership election, is among a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to claim the territory where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations which the PM should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
