Back in 2018, it took just a short phrase to energize the party's annual gathering and to show Labour was falling out of love with its then leader. While not precisely stirring rhetoric, the words were greeted with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, visibly startled. He was unaccustomed to his speeches having such an effect. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". Context, however, is key.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was inevitably viewed as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the pro-European instincts within Labour. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Closed Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the EU question was resolved by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed unbreakable pledge promises that forbade rejoining the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite survey data suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a party leader. While EU relations is no longer the central crisis in UK politics, a lid which was firmly shut for five years is beginning to rattle once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on Britain's economic standing. It’s a useful stick with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was his primary goal and is still 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, dwarfs the micro-mitigation thus far implemented by the government. 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 one of those attempting to bypass entrenched Home Office resistance to an expansive version designed to boost growth youth mobility scheme by which youths can travel between Britain and Europe for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at every cabinet meeting, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of talks immediately for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the following election platform, with implementation only if securing a fresh mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
Yet, Starmer has most recently damping it all down on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as signature achievements of his government.
Reportedly that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact is now significantly more difficult as ministers are busily de-aligning from European rules across a range of sectors, including the environment.
- Second, the exorbitant price demanded from Britain for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led British officials that European nations are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in demonstrating that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, praised by the Kremlin, is viewed by key advisors in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
An Alarming Strategy & Geopolitical Considerations
This strange and concerning American strategy paper asserts Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It contains a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt to become leader but merely an effort to preserve the “option” of staying in the EU being on the ballot paper. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement similar to the one he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand for the leadership, is among a group of cabinet ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a future race for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her stance regarding a customs pact because it would only “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect just a few words had on his career in 2018. Potential pathways for a major proposal on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should explore them himself, before someone else adopt them as their own.
