Seven years ago, a mere eight words to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. While not exactly stirring rhetoric, the phrase met with rapturous applause as most of the hall stood for an impromptu ovation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his addresses having such an effect. His statement was simply: "We are not excluding staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period of 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. With that single address, this seemingly cautious opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a political gambler who would stand up for the party's base against a leader he later succeeded.
The Evolution of Stance & Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, especially for Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised manifesto “red line” commitments that forbade rejoining 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, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
A Lid That Rattles on the EU
However, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric regarding the damage 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 is still his sole political accomplishment.
And yet, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller compared to EU membership, dwarfs the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called re-set deal negotiated with the EU in 2024 provides gains quantified in fractions of a percent.
Internal Pressure & Ambitious Proposals
Rachel Reeves is among those attempting to bypass long-standing interior ministry opposition to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly about the clear advantages of being in an EU customs pact, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the powerful finance committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on joining one.
Although Nick Thomas-Symonds, who oversees UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now on a much bolder deal, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if Labour won a fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea by warning rejoining a European customs area would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that Starmer's doubts go still deeper, and is rooted in three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks a customs pact is now much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations in numerous sectors, including the environment.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has led British officials that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK and are more focused on proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Document and Strategic Calculations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains only one reference to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from deciding that this makes America an unreliable partner, 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.
Succession Chatter and The Echo of 2018
All of which brings us back to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said that address was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU in a future vote. Indeed, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
But it’s not been lost on the Prime Minister's office note that the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is among a clutch of senior ministers signaling they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, maintain she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Wise Reminder
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject significant moves towards a close relationship, he allows rivals to claim the territory where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise for Starmer to remember the effect just a few words had for him in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe which the PM should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
