In opposition, [Keir Starmer](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/keir-starmer) pushed Brexit to the margin of debate. In government, he has learned that Europe is central to Britain’s interests whether you talk about it or not. The avoidance of painful arguments from the past turns out to be a handicap when making plans for the future. This was predictable. Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto pretended that Brexit was a historical event. It was something Boris Johnson got “done” in 2020, in fulfilment of his winning campaign pledge from the previous year. The terms could be tweaked, but Starmer [promised to preserve the substance](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/30/the-eu-quandary-labours-efforts-to-build-good-relations-and-keep-red-lines). That was an indulgence of public fatigue with the whole issue, made electorally expedient by fear of offending former Labour supporters who had voted leave in the referendum. But the relationship can’t be settled because the EU is an evolving project in a world of flux. It responds to international crises, with consequences for the ex-member on its border. The options are more [Brexit](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/eu-referendum), or less, never a steady state. Johnson understood this perpetual motion. His deal was structured to accelerate separation over time. The theory was that divergence from EU rules gave Britain a competitive advantage. Any downside from friction in trade with the single market would be outweighed by gains from deals with other countries, chiefly the US. That was a [Eurosceptic fantasy](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/31/us-europe-trade-deal-brexit-britain) built on assumptions that open, low-tariff trade was an immutable fact of the world economy, and that nimble Britannia could negotiate on equal terms with whole continents. The colossal wrongness of that view is now exposed. Vladimir Putin’s territorial aggression, Donald Trump’s geopolitical vandalism and China’s emergence as a superpower nearing parity with the US combine to form an irresistible case for Britain to make common cause with [Europe](https://www.theguardian.com/world/europe-news). This means putting Johnson’s divergence ratchet into reverse. Downing Street’s acceptance of that logic has been flagged by a gradual change in rhetoric. The prime minister used to say Brexit could be made to work. Now he [lists it as an affliction](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/01/uk-needs-ambitious-new-eu-ties-amid-iran-war-starmer-says) in the same category as the Covid pandemic. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, [identifies closer integration](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/11/labour-political-argument-closer-eu-ties-rachel-reeves) with Europe as “the biggest prize” in a dash for growth. To facilitate a more intimate relationship, the government [proposes legislation](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/13/what-new-eu-bill-uk-ministers-henry-viii-type-powers) that will give ministers open-ended powers to adopt EU standards for various sectors of the economy. There will be no requirement to ask parliament’s permission in every case. Such “dynamic alignment” is supposed to make it easier for businesses to move goods into the single market and make Britain a more attractive destination for investment. Naturally, the Conservatives and Reform UK are appalled. They object to the circumvention of future legislative scrutiny by the use of so-called Henry VIII powers, although the same mechanism was used by architects of Brexit to engineer automatic dealignment. The real grievance is the old ideological one, equating any application of single market rules to colonisation by Brussels. Nigel Farage [calls the proposed bill](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c937jkvp3w8o) “a backdoor attempt to drag Britain back under EU control”. The government insists there will be opt-outs and a scrutiny mechanism so that Britain’s economy won’t be a passive moon, orbiting planet Europe. How that will work in practice is hard to say because the plan for multisectoral economic alignment exists only in Whitehall imaginations. It isn’t yet a technical negotiation with the EU, except in the [limited area of veterinary and agricultural goods](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/29/food-sector-transition-period-uk-eu-brexit-reset). The further Starmer tries to go in this direction, the harder he will collide with familiar Brexit obstacles. The European Commission will insist there can be no “cherrypicking” from the single market; that non-member states wanting to enjoy the benefits of a European club can expect to pay subscription fees into European budgets; that the chancellor’s coveted prize of free movement for goods comes as a package with free movement of people. There is no escaping the trade-off between a political promise of undiluted national sovereignty and the blurring of borders required to maximise economic gains from integration. Or rather, there is an elegant solution to that problem, but it exists beyond the bounds of conceivable scenarios for the current government. It involves British ministers and parliamentarians exercising significant leverage – including vetoes – over the rules and overall direction of the EU from seats in all of its governing institutions. It is the model called membership. Its unique merits, amplifying national power through continental collaboration, are the reason why Eurosceptic railing against subjugation by foreigners was more of a xenophobic conspiracy theory than a description of the actual European project. Opinion polls [routinely show](https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Internal_BrexitResults_260223.pdf) a clear majority of voters think Brexit has gone badly. The logic of pooling resources with continental neighbours can only grow in the light of wildfires started by Trump along the international horizon. Farage’s [record of fawning advocacy](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/31/nigel-farage-reform-biggest-problem-donald-trump) for the arsonist president proves, as if more proof were needed, that he is an unreliable arbiter of UK interests. Starmer knows these conditions permit a more assertive agenda of EU integration. But it is hard to take bolder strides within red lines – no free movement; no single market membership; no customs union – drawn when Labour’s Europe policy was defined by the preference to change the subject. Paucity of ambition slows negotiations on the modest goals set in the 2024 manifesto. The EU is unwieldy in dealing even with its own internal affairs. And it has plenty of those to worry about before deciding whether to grant favours to a troublesome ex-member whose Brexit penitence might be superficial. Any deal on offer to a pro-European prime minister will include clauses insuring against [backsliding by a Reform UK successor](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/11/draft-farage-clause-eu-if-reform-uk-wins-election). That is another reason to be less stealthy when moving back towards Europe. Starmer’s favoured method for approaching any issue is to creep up on it. His plan was to chip away at the case for Brexit by delivering the benefits of a better relationship with Brussels. The sequence should have been reversed. Being seen to win the big arguments at home is what earns goodwill for a better deal in Europe. To transform the relationship, to innovate a previously unthinkable model of UK-EU partnership, to break out of the desultory cycle of suspicion and low ambition, Starmer needed a less timid mandate. It isn’t too late. Or at least there is less to fear, and not much for an unpopular prime minister left to lose by talking about Brexit for what it is – not a deal to be revised or a condition to be managed but a tragic mistake to be corrected. Events have refuted every Eurosceptic myth. Britain has trudged long enough through the bog of Johnson’s lies, against the headwinds of false Faragist promises. The strategic, economic and political facts are now dynamically aligned for a change of course. * Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist * **Guardian Newsroom: Can Labour come back from the brink? **On Thursday 30 April, join Gaby Hinsliff, Zoe Williams, Polly Toynbee and Rafael Behr as they discuss how much of a threat Labour faces from the Green party and Reform UK – and whether Keir Starmer can survive as leader. Book tickets [here](https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-live-events/2026/feb/03/guardian-newsroom-can-labour-come-back-from-the-brink)

Britain should start talking about rejoining the EU, according to a former senior civil servant who ran the [Brexit](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/eu-referendum) department. Philip Rycroft, who was permanent secretary of the Department for Exiting the EU, said the “argument was there to be won” about going back into [Europe](https://www.theguardian.com/world/europe-news), adding that a “clear-headed appraisal of what is in the country’s best interests” was needed. However, he said rejoining the bloc could be a “long and windy” road. “Most economic analysis suggests that we have taken a significant hit to GDP as a result of leaving the single market,” he wrote in [the Times](https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/brexit-rejoining-eu-g7dfc9rbn). “The precise number, and the impact on our export performance to the EU and beyond, might be subject to debate, but no one can credibly claim that we have marched to the sunny uplands of sustained economic growth as a consequence of Brexit.” Rycroft said the promises of the Brexit campaign on issues from economics to immigration had [not lived up to expectations](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/19/labour-approach-closer-eu-ties-address-damage-of-brexit). “The great promise of a comprehensive trade deal with the USA now seems like an impossible dream,” he said. [](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/24/britain-should-rejoin-eu-philip-rycroft#img-2) Philip Rycroft answers questions in the House of Commons in 2018 on the UK’s negotiations on withdrawing from the EU. Photograph: PA Images/Alamy “Chill winds don’t just blow through the international trading order. The postwar certainties that underpinned our security as a nation are visibly crumbling. With a hot war on the European mainland perpetrated by a revanchist Russia and an increasingly disengaged America, it is beyond peradventure that we must look to solidarity with our friends and neighbours in Europe to secure our defences.” He concluded: “The argument is there to be won. It is time to talk about rejoining. It might be time to knock on the EU’s door.” Rycroft’s comments chime with a growing mood within [Labour](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/labour) that the party should be bolder on getting closer to the EU or rejoining in future. A number of cabinet ministers want Keir Starmer to push harder on trying to join a customs union or the single market, which are still red lines for the government as it seeks a stronger post-Brexit relationship with the EU. In January, the prime minister said the UK should consider “even closer alignment” with the single market, which was preferable to a customs union. “If it’s in our national interest … then we should consider that, we should go that far,” he said. Concerns were raised at the European parliament on Thursday over EU citizens in the UK and British citizens in Europe post Brexit. MEPs heard about worries over the rights of children born to EU citizens in the UK but who did not know they had to apply for settled status. They could face charges from the NHS or questions about employability in future, [the parliament heard](https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/webstreaming/delegation-to-eu-uk-parliamentary-partnership-assembly-ordinary-meeting_20260423-0930-DELEGATION-DUK). Michal Meduna, a senior official in the European Commission’s post-withdrawal agreement unit said: “The UK approach has significant consequences for newborn children, resulting in very high healthcare charges.” The [Home Office](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/home-office) was also criticised at the European parliament hearing, which it attended, for ending funding for charities assisting vulnerable EU citizens making late applications for settlement. Settled, one of the charities, will say in a report published next week that it is seeing “hundreds of requests for advice every week”, but it no longer receives funding from the Home Office. British in Europe, a grassroots coalition that campaigned for the rights of about 1.2 million British people living in the EU in 27 countries, told the parliament it had no funding from the UK. Although it is one of the interlocutors with the European Commission on Brexit, its principals, Fiona Godfrey and Jane Golding, are now working on an unpaid basis. “We are all here as volunteers,” they said. “We would call on the British government also to fund the work that is needed to be done, for the support of British citizens living in the EU, because that has not been forthcoming.” The UK government defended its decision to stop funding, with £32m spent since 2019 to help charities. Aliza Dee, the deputy head of justice and home affairs at the EU relations secretariat in the Cabinet Office, told the parliament: “Now that we’re seeing significantly fewer applications being made, and with fewer organisations operating in that space, now is the right moment to to bring an end to that particular tranche of funding. But alternative forms of support do exist in the UK, for example, the settlement scheme resolution centre.”