Seven years ago, a mere a short phrase to ignite a Labour conference and to show the party was becoming disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn. Although not exactly soaring oratory, the words were greeted with wild cheering as delegates rose in spontaneous acclamation.
When the noise subsided, the then-Brexit spokesman, remained at the lectern, blinking in surprise. 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.
In that darkly divisive time in 2018, straying from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as issuing a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn, who sought to prioritize leave supporters in key constituencies above the pro-European instincts of his party. With that single address, this grey-suited opposition Brexit spokesman was transformed – if only for a while – into a political gambler who championed the party's base against a leader he would later replace.
The Evolution in Position & Settled Debates
In the years since, the landscape has shifted, especially for Starmer himself. One of his first acts upon assuming leadership in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue had been settled by the previous year’s national vote. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge commitments that forbade rejoining the European Union or its core structures.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has been to pursue Brexit-y voters in target constituencies, despite survey data indicates many of them have passed away or shifted opinion.
Pressure Building on Europe
Yet, it’s now Starmer is now to face the pressures of being a Labour leader. While Europe is no longer the central crisis of British politics, a lid which was tightly sealed since Brexit is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have intensified their language regarding the damage caused by Brexit has inflicted on the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick with which to beat Nigel Farage, who now rarely mentions how leaving the EU was his primary goal and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has resulted in an economy that is between 6% and 8% smaller than if it were still in the EU, dwarfs the minor adjustments so far offered by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 provides gains measured in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence and Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome entrenched interior ministry opposition to a broader scheme of a growth-enabling youth mobility scheme allowing youths can travel between Britain and Europe to study or work.
The deputy prime minister has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of being in a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, including the chair of the Treasury select committee, recently supported a Liberal Democrat motion on joining one.
While the Europe minister, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, who is now attending all cabinet sessions, insists the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways to work around them. A proposal would be to declaring the commencement of negotiations now for a more ambitious agreement, for inclusion in the next manifesto, with implementation only if securing a new electoral mandate.
The Prime Minister's Fundamental Doubts
However, Starmer has most recently pouring cold water again cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement would “unravel” the commercial agreements with America, which he regards as key accomplishments of his government.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from three further factors.
- Firstly, he thinks any customs union agreement has been made significantly more difficult as ministers are actively diverging from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, like environmental standards.
- Secondly, the exorbitant price set for the UK to join a European defense initiative and the ensuing failure of negotiations has convinced UK negotiators that former EU partners have little interest in offering favorable terms to the UK than in proving that Brexit does not work.
- Lastly, the new US national security strategy, which has been welcomed by Moscow, is seen by key advisors in Downing Street as a reason for the UK to keep its distance from the EU.
An Alarming Document & Geopolitical Calculations
This strange and concerning document claims Europe faces cultural extinction because of Muslim migration. It includes a single mention of the UK, placed beside a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to encourage the growth of “patriotic” parties.
However, instead of concluding that this makes the US an undependable ally, ministers reportedly fear that deeper EU integration would destabilise geopolitics further by endangering fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Leadership Speculation & The Ghost of 2018
All of which returns us to the conference of 2018. Starmer has always said his speech was not a pitch to become leader but merely an attempt to keep open the “option” of remain in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a “bespoke customs union deal” similar to the one he now appears to be opposing.
Observers within Downing Street note that Wes Streeting, who just about everyone assumes would stand in any leadership election, is part of a clutch of cabinet ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition regarding the EU.
Staff for Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a future race to replace Starmer, insist she refuses to comment on her stance on a customs union as it would merely “escalate unhelpful speculation”.
The Obvious Risk and A Wise Reminder
The risk is clear. If Starmer rules out significant moves towards EU alignment, he allows rivals to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs, members and voters are to be found.
It would be wise of him to remember the effect just a few words had for him seven years ago. There are options for a big offer on EU relations that the prime minister should not “rule out”; he should prise them open personally, rather than letting rivals makes them his – or her – own.
