Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as most of the hall rose in an impromptu ovation.
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. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift in Position and Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the EU question was resolved by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Like his predecessor, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, even if survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the scale of the damage, which by some estimates has resulted in a national economy that is significantly diminished than if it were still in the EU, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits measured in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to an expansive version of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the clear advantages of joining an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, who oversees EU policy, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there exist avenues to work around them. One idea would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the next manifesto, to be enacted only after securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down again cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his premiership.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult because his ministers busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost 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 have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document claims Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to immigration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government is worried that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost from the Past
This situation returns us to 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, back then, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a contest to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Danger and A Prudent Memory
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect that a short phrase had on his career in 2018. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
