Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates stood for an impromptu ovation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". But context is everything.
During that darkly divisive time of 2018, straying from his agreed text like this was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position and Closed Debates
Since then, 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 previous year’s general election. During the most recent campaign, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, the PM's approach has focused on winning pro-Leave voters in key seats, despite polling evidence indicates a significant number have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on Europe
However, it’s now the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. And, if Europe may not be the boiling pot in UK politics, a lid that has been kept tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
The Prime Minister and Chancellor have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. This serves as an effective tool to criticize Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was once his singular purpose and remains his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the scale of the damage, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, towers over the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by ministers. The PM's much-touted re-set deal agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth program for young people allowing young people can move between the UK and the EU to study or work.
David Lammy has pondered publicly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently supported an opposition proposal on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the firm boundaries remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after securing a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Fundamental Scepticism
However, Starmer has lately been damping it all down on the idea 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 several key concerns.
- First, he believes any customs union agreement is now much harder as ministers are actively diverging from European rules in numerous policy areas, including the environment.
- Second, the prohibitive cost demanded from Britain to join the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by the Kremlin, is seen by some influential figures in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Document and Strategic Considerations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It contains a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of deciding that this makes America an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration could upset the global balance by endangering precarious American backing for Ukraine, Nato and much more besides.
Leadership Speculation and The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, in those days, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” of the kind he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within the Prime Minister's office have noticed that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to the Deputy Prime Minister, another likely contender in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be prudent of him to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
