Seven years ago, it took just eight words to ignite a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, 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". But context is everything.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, departing from his agreed text in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats over the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – albeit temporarily – into a risk-taker who championed the party's base against the leadership he would later replace.
The Evolution of Stance & Closed Debates
In the years since, much has happened, not least to Starmer himself. One of his first acts after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he consistently stressed manifesto “red line” promises that ruled out re-entry into the European Union or its core structures.
Like his predecessor, the PM's approach has been to pursue pro-Leave voters in target constituencies, despite polling evidence suggests many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to be an embattled party leader. While Europe is no longer the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept firmly shut for five years is starting to loosen once more.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified the rhetoric about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to Britain's economic standing. This serves as an effective tool with which to beat the Reform UK leader, who now rarely mentions his flagship policy was his primary goal and remains his sole political accomplishment.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, which by some estimates has left Britain with a national economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by ministers. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset negotiated with the EU last summer provides gains quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Ambitious Proposals
The chancellor is one of those attempting to bypass long-standing Home Office resistance to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing young people can travel between the UK and the EU for work or study.
David Lammy muses openly about the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, as several Labour backbenchers, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently voted for an opposition proposal on customs union membership.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of EU policy, now present at all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. One idea involves announce the start of talks immediately on a much bolder deal, to be featured in the following election platform, to be enacted only after Labour won a new electoral mandate.
Starmer's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that rejoining an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with the US, which he views as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- First, he believes a customs pact is now much harder because his ministers actively diverging from European rules across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into the EU’s new defence fund and the subsequent collapse in talks has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain and are more focused on demonstrating that Brexit does not work.
- Thirdly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is viewed by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for Britain to keep its distance from the EU.
A Bizarre Strategy and Geopolitical Considerations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe faces “civilizational erasure” due to immigration. It includes a single mention of the UK, found on a proposal that the US government may interfere in British politics to encourage the rise of “patriotic” parties.
But, far from concluding that this renders America an undependable ally, the government reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by risking precarious American backing for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
This situation brings us back to 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not an attempt for the leadership but merely an effort to preserve the possibility of remain in a future vote. 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 the Health Secretary, who just about everyone assumes would be a candidate in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they want to go further regarding the EU.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another likely contender in a contest for the top job, maintain she won’t discuss her stance on a customs union because it would only “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Obvious Danger & A Prudent Memory
The danger is obvious. If Starmer rules out more meaningful steps towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where most of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to remember the impact just a few words had on his career in 2018. There are options for a major proposal on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them himself, before someone else makes them his – or her – own.
