Back in 2018, a mere a short phrase to electrify a Labour conference demonstrating Labour was becoming disillusioned with its then leader. Although not precisely soaring oratory, the phrase met with rapturous applause as delegates stood for spontaneous acclamation.
As the commotion died down, the then-Brexit spokesman, stood at the podium, blinking in surprise. He was unaccustomed to his speeches producing such a reaction. All he had said was: "Nobody is ruling out staying in the EU". But context is everything.
In that deeply polarized period in 2018, departing from the prepared script in this way was always going to be seen as laying down the gauntlet to the party leader, who was trying to prioritise Brexit voters in working-class seats above the Europhile sentiments within Labour. In just one speech, this seemingly cautious shadow Brexit secretary underwent a transformation – if only for a while – into a political gambler who would stand up for most Labour MPs, members and voters against a leader he would later replace.
The Shift of Stance & Settled Debates
Since then, the landscape has shifted, not least to Starmer himself. An early move after taking over from Corbyn in 2020 was to declare the Brexit issue was resolved by the 2019 general election. And, at the last one, he repeatedly emphasised unbreakable pledge promises that ruled out re-entry into the EU, the single market or a customs union.
Similar to Corbyn, his strategy has focused on winning Brexit-y voters in key seats, even if polling evidence suggests many of them have died or changed their minds.
Pressure Building on the EU
Yet, the tables have turned and the prime minister’s turn to face the pressures of being a party leader. And, if EU relations may not be the boiling pot of British politics, the cap that has been kept tightly sealed for five years is starting to loosen again.
Both Starmer and Rachel Reeves have ramped up their language about the devastation caused by Brexit has caused to the UK’s economy. It’s a useful stick to criticize Nigel Farage, who seldom discusses how leaving the EU was once his singular purpose and remains his only real achievement.
Nevertheless, the extent of the economic harm, reportedly has left Britain with an economy that is significantly diminished compared to EU membership, towers over the minor adjustments thus far implemented by the government. Starmer’s so-called relationship reset agreed with Brussels in 2024 offers economic benefits quantified in low decimal points.
Cabinet Divergence & Bolder Ideas
Rachel Reeves is one of those trying to overcome 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 for work or study.
David Lammy has pondered publicly regarding the “self-evident” benefits of joining a customs union with the EU, while a dozen Labour MPs, such as the head of the Treasury select committee, last week voted for a Liberal Democrat motion on customs union membership.
While Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister in charge of UK-EU relations, now present at all cabinet sessions, maintains the red lines remain unchanged, there are ways these could be bypassed. A proposal 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 fresh mandate.
The Prime Minister's Deep-Seated Doubts
However, Starmer has lately been pouring cold water on the idea cautioning that a return to an EU customs arrangement could undermine the trade pacts with the US, which he regards as key accomplishments of his premiership.
It is understood that the PM’s scepticism run even deeper, stemming from several key concerns.
- Firstly, he believes a customs pact has been made much harder as ministers are busily de-aligning from EU regulations across a range of policy areas, including the environment.
- Secondly, the prohibitive cost set for the UK for entry into a European defense initiative and the subsequent collapse of negotiations has led UK negotiators that former EU partners are less interested in cutting special deals with Britain than in proving that leaving the EU was a mistake.
- Lastly, America's latest security doctrine, praised by Moscow, is viewed by some influential figures in Number 10 as grounds for Britain to maintain distance from Europe.
A Bizarre Document & Strategic Calculations
This bizarre and terrifying document asserts Europe is threatened by cultural extinction due to Muslim migration. It includes a single mention to Britain, found on a proposal that the US government will intervene in our politics to foster the growth of nationalist movements.
But, far from concluding that this makes America an unreliable partner, ministers reportedly fear that aligning closer with Europe could upset the global balance by risking fragile US military support for Kyiv, NATO, and other alliances.
Succession Chatter and The Ghost of 2018
All of which brings us back to 2018. The PM has consistently stated his speech was not an attempt to become leader but simply an attempt to keep open the possibility of staying in the EU in a future vote. In fact, back then, he still supported a tailored trade agreement of the kind he currently seems to reject.
Observers within Downing Street have noticed that the Health Secretary, widely considered would stand for the leadership, is among a clutch of senior ministers letting it be known they desire greater ambition on Europe.
Aides to Angela Rayner, another probable runner in a contest for the top job, insist she refuses to comment on her position regarding a customs pact as it would merely “fuel unnecessary gossip”.
The Clear Danger & A Wise Memory
The danger is obvious. Should the PM reject more meaningful steps towards a close relationship, he cedes ground to occupy the space where the overwhelming majority of the party's supporters reside.
It would be wise of him to recall the impact just a few words had for him seven years ago. Potential pathways for a big offer on Europe that the prime minister ought to consider; he should explore them personally, rather than letting rivals adopt them as their own.
