Policy Paper by Dr. Mohamad Kawas – Progress Center for Policies
⸻
Executive Summary
• The government in London is showing increasing momentum toward rapprochement with Europe, contrary to the promises that underpinned Brexit.
• Economic, defense, and geopolitical drivers are pushing the UK closer to the EU, potentially laying the groundwork for eventual reintegration.
• The war in Ukraine, the perceived Russian threat, U.S. retrenchment, and ambiguity in relations with China are accelerating Britain’s European recalibration.
• The issue remains politically sensitive and could trigger renewed domestic polarization, despite opinion polls indicating growing public support for closer ties with Europe.
⸻
Introduction
London is displaying mounting signs of reassessing its post-Brexit trajectory. Although the 2016 referendum resulted in a narrow majority in favor of leaving the European Union, proponents of Brexit—often driven by ideological considerations—promised restored sovereignty, economic revival, and the expansion of global bilateral trade networks.
However, economic data and the limited success of alternative political and economic arrangements have pushed the Labour government in London toward a broad reassessment—approaching what some interpret as tacit regret and a reconsideration of what is increasingly viewed as a strategic miscalculation.
⸻
London’s European Signals
Britain’s renewed engagement with the European Union reflects a gradual shift in foreign policy following its formal withdrawal in 2020. The current Labour government has sought to rebuild bridges with Brussels amid mounting economic and security challenges.
A key milestone occurred in May 2025 with the first UK–EU summit since Brexit, resulting in agreements on defense and trade. While not signaling immediate re-entry into the Union, the summit marked the beginning of a new cooperative phase and hinted at growing regret over Brexit’s consequences. The emphasis remains on mitigating economic and security costs, with the possibility that incremental rapprochement could eventually evolve into broader reintegration discussions.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been central to this recalibration. In October 2024, he met European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, agreeing to enhance cooperation in defense and security and to institutionalize regular summits from 2025 onward. At the May 2025 London summit, Starmer described the new agreements as a “historic moment,” arguing they would reduce administrative barriers and strengthen the British economy, declaring that “Britain is back on the world stage.”
In January 2026, he signaled openness to deeper alignment if it served the “national interest,” while cautioning against reopening “stale debates” about Brexit.
Policy commentators have echoed this reassessment. Tom Baldwin, Starmer’s biographer, suggested the UK could move “very close” to the single market without full membership. Former senior official Martin Donnelly argued in June 2025 for joining selected sectors of the single market—such as agri-food and electricity—in exchange for financial contributions.
Opinion polls reinforce this shift: a YouGov survey in June 2025 found that 56% of Britons believe Brexit was a mistake, while 61% judge it more a failure than a success.
⸻
Europe as an Economic Imperative
Economic considerations are central to the rapprochement. Brexit has been associated with significant trade losses. According to analyses by the Centre for European Reform (February 2026), UK goods exports have fallen by 20% since 2019 and would have been 30% higher had pre-Brexit growth trends continued. Other studies estimate that deeper alignment with the EU could increase long-term GDP by 1.7% to 2.2%.
In May 2025, Britain and the EU agreed to reduce trade barriers in food and agriculture, link emissions trading systems, and extend fisheries arrangements through 2038—providing approximately £80 million annually to British fishers. In November 2025, the European Commission announced negotiations to link agri-food markets, reflecting Britain’s need to secure access to its largest trading partner.
These developments occur amid persistent inflation and labor shortages following Brexit, driving the government to seek arrangements that reduce administrative and customs burdens.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves emphasized on 11 February 2026 that:
1. Deeper alignment with the EU represents the “greatest prize” for the British economy.
2. Nearly half of UK trade is linked to the EU, underscoring economic interdependence.
3. Regulatory alignment could reduce Brexit-related barriers.
4. The government is prepared for pragmatic compromises, including cooperation on European defense spending.
5. Britain’s economic and security future remains closely tied to Europe, favoring sectoral alignment to boost growth.
⸻
Defense Drivers Behind European Rapprochement
Security considerations have become increasingly central, particularly following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and its enduring consequences through 2026.
The war prompted a strategic reassessment across Europe. Britain has sought stronger partnerships with EU states to bolster collective defense capabilities and reduce dependence on the United States.
Prime Minister Starmer has repeatedly stressed the importance of strengthening security cooperation with the EU to confront what he described as “the greatest threat Europe has faced in generations.” This reflects concerns over U.S. strategic reliability—particularly following Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in January 2025, his calls for NATO burden-sharing, and signals of potential retrenchment or strategic pivot toward Asia.
European defense spending rose by 30% between 2021 and 2024 to €326 billion, accompanied by initiatives such as the €150 billion “SAFE” fund aimed at accelerating defense capabilities. Britain seeks participation in such initiatives to support its defense industry, which faces skills shortages and supply-chain vulnerabilities.
The UK and EU signed a Security and Defense Partnership in May 2025, enabling strategic consultation in cyber, space, and hybrid threat domains. Meanwhile, Britain and France led a “coalition of the willing” to support a future peace arrangement in Ukraine, culminating in a January 2026 declaration of intent to deploy multinational forces for training and planning purposes.
Broader geopolitical ambiguity—particularly regarding China—has also reinforced coordination with Europe under a shared strategy of “de-risking” and strengthening strategic autonomy.
⸻
Domestic Divisions: Elite and Electoral Dynamics
Domestic reactions remain divided.
The Labour Party has advocated a “reset” of relations without formally endorsing re-entry into the single market or customs union. Some ministers have suggested customs union alignment, while Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham expressed hope of eventual EU re-entry within his lifetime.
Public opinion has shifted: a January 2026 YouGov poll showed that 50% would vote to rejoin the EU if a referendum were held today, compared to 31% favoring remaining outside. Additionally, 72% reported feeling less in control than before Brexit.
Opposition comes primarily from the Conservative Party and right-wing media, which labeled the May 2025 summit a “surrender summit.” The Reform Party, led by Nigel Farage, opposes any rapprochement, framing it as a betrayal of Brexit.
Despite supportive polling trends, the Labour government remains cautious, wary of alienating voters—particularly traditional working-class constituencies that supported Brexit in 2016.
⸻
Conclusions and Assessments
• For the first time since the 2016 referendum and the UK’s 2020 withdrawal, official signals indicate a substantive reassessment of Brexit and a structured approach toward European rapprochement.
• The Labour Party, despite its historically ambivalent stance during the referendum, has not formally advocated reversing Brexit but appears to be gradually preparing the political ground for deeper alignment.
• Six years after withdrawal, economic indicators across sectors reveal underperformance relative to Brexit-era expectations.
• Britain has failed to secure ambitious alternative trade frameworks—particularly with the United States—that could offset reduced European market access.
• The Ukraine war accelerated Britain’s recognition of the need for a broader European security umbrella in response to perceived Russian threats.
• U.S. strategic ambiguity under the Trump administration, including signals of NATO retrenchment and proposals for a Russia-centered settlement in Ukraine, has reinforced the logic of European defense alignment.
• Although Starmer’s visit to China suggested openness to diversified economic partnerships, sensitivities in the UK–U.S. relationship limit a China-centered alternative, leaving Europe as the more reliable strategic option.
• While the government does not formally advocate a new referendum, it appears to be shaping public opinion toward reconsideration, relying on increasingly favorable polling trends.
• Conservative and populist right-wing forces remain firmly opposed, labeling rapprochement as betrayal, while the government continues to navigate a delicate political balance.
Overall assessment: Britain is not yet preparing for immediate EU re-entry, but it is steadily reconstructing the structural, economic, and defense foundations that could make such a return politically and strategically conceivable in the medium to long term.
