Seven years ago, it took just eight words to energize the party's annual gathering demonstrating the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly stirring rhetoric, the words met with wild cheering as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies over the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was declaring the Brexit issue had been settled by the 2019 national vote. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments 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 key seats, despite survey data indicates a significant number have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up 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 now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling program for young people by which young people can move between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about 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 joining one.
Although the Europe minister, who oversees UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal involves announce the start of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
Reportedly that Starmer's doubts run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- First, he believes a customs pact has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Second, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms with Britain than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by the Kremlin, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying American strategy paper claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a suggestion that the US government will intervene in British politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Echo of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of remain in a future vote. Indeed, in those days, Starmer still favoured a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, widely considered would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further on Europe.
Staff for the Deputy Prime Minister, another probable runner in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of Labour MPs, members and voters reside.
It would be prudent for Starmer to recall the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
