Peter Kellner / Apr 2026
Photo: Shutterstock
Whatever Keir Starmer’s fate, big national issues still need attention. One of the biggest is Britain’s place in the world. With the crippling impact of Brexit, erratic threats from Washington, the Russian menace in Ukraine, and doubts about the future of Nato, the agenda is long and urgent.
In only one of these is clear progress visible – but in a way that drags us inexorably towards a decision that can’t be fluffed: whether, in due course, to apply to rejoin the European Union. Currently, Nick Thomas-Symonds, the minister for Europe, is working to lower some of the barriers that harm the economy. That’s useful, but not yet a game-changer. Economists differ but even if the current talks all go well, we shall end up undoing only one-tenth of the damage done by Brexit, possibly less.
Five years ago, nobody who advocated rejoining the EU received much of a hearing. That is starting to change. The referendum was ten years ago. Brexit’s strongest supporters were elderly: the 2016 pro-Brexit majority has literally died out. (I went through the numbers a few months ago.)
The case for rejoining is no longer just the passion of a perverse minority. Polls show that it is supported by a steady majority of voters. Philip Rycroft, the permanent secretary who led the negotiations for leaving the EU following the referendum, now wants to reverse that decision: “The argument is there to be won. It is time to talk about rejoining”. The Observer reports that Neil Kinnock and “senior Labour figures and business leaders” agree.
This follows a recent conference where Best for Britain unveiled their latest research. They concluded that “a push for UK membership of the European Union would galvanise support among progressive voters”.
As a recovering pollster, I would love to claim that the current polls reflect the settled will of the people and won’t change. I can’t. Voters can be fickle. My purpose here is not to disappoint my fellow rejoiners; it is to look reality in the face in order to achieve the objective we share.
Here’s the thing. The journey back into the EU will be long and difficult. Success will involve messy compromises. However keen EU members are to welcome us back into their club, they will drive a hard bargain. Some British voters who now want to reverse Brexit may get cold feet when they find that it isn’t simply a question of turning the clock back ten years. Membership in the future should boost our economy, but our annual subscription to Brussels is bound to be higher than it would have been had we never left.
The impact of the negotiations on public opinion matters. If we apply to rejoin the EU, and support drains away, good luck to the minister who says: “We are doing what voters told us to do. They can’t just chop and change. It’s not our fault if they did not understand the consequences of their decision. We shall carry on.”
How, then, can my fellow rejoiners preserve today’s pro-European majority, and win the long-term battle to undo the damage that Brexit has done?
They should start by avoiding a tempting mistake. Do not treat a favourable poll result as a precise instruction to a meticulous lawyer. It is best viewed as an invitation to ministers to seize the lead and ignite public passion; to convert the wobbly sentiment of shallow supporters into real commitment.
This will not be done by stressing the value of deals on food safety, youth mobility, carbon emissions trading, common manufacturing standards and defence procurement. These are all important matters. But to win the argument, they must tell a more vivid story that carries conviction. They need to show that they understand their audience, that they can be trusted, that they have a vision for Britain’s place in Europe and the wider world, that the future is bright.
This means casting off, openly and honestly, the caution they displayed in 2024. For the past two years they have sent mixed signals.
Labour’s 2024 manifesto stated:
“With Labour, Britain will stay outside of the EU. But to seize the opportunities ahead, we must make Brexit work. We will reset the relationship and seek to deepen ties with our European friends, neighbours and allies. That does not mean reopening the divisions of the past. There will be no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement.”
In a speech early this month, Starmer appeared to have moved on. He said:
“We want to be more ambitious. Closer economic cooperation. Closer security cooperation. A partnership that recognises our shared values, our shared interests, and our shared future. A partnership for the dangerous world that we must navigate together.”
A big step forward? Not so fast. On April 13, Monica Harding, a Liberal Democrat MP, questioned him in the House of Commons. She said:
“Given the disturbing utterances from the occupant of the White House and the squeeze on our living standards, surely the future is across the channel towards Europe, and I note that the Prime Minister gave a line, presumably for the local elections, about alignment with Europe, but can he give more detail on what this means for defence, for security and for prosperity?”
Yet far from endorsing the case for moving on from his limited manifesto commitments, he replied:
“A close relationship with the EU and Europe was in our manifesto in 2024, which was a very successful manifesto, and we have been working to that end ever since”.
Nor has there been any change in, or correction to, the statement by the prime minister’s official spokesman on March 19 that Starmer remained committed to “taking sovereign decisions in the national interest while sticking to our red lines.”
The trouble with all that is that Starmer and Thomas-Symonds slither between two stools: They want to persuade pro-European voters that they have a plan to undo the damage done by Brexit – while reassuring voters they have lost to Reform that the basic features of Brexit will be preserved.
A trumpet giving an uncertain sound is of no more use today than it was to the Corinthians. It stops ministers making the bold, inspirational case for a pro-European future, and drawing a clear line between them and their opponents in Reform, the Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Express. They fear that boldness would be unpopular. In fact, boldness might well be the safer option. Timidity dressed up as a sensible compromise is the real danger. Voters who never follow the details of what politicians do can still smell cowardice. The time has come for Starmer to adopt the language of Franklin Roosevelt. In his campaign for re-election in 1936, he gave the perfect response to the way the biggest American industrialist and bankers condemned his New Deal policies. “They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred”.
Or we could learn from the civil rights movement twenty years later. It adapted an old gospel song, “Keep your hands on the plow” (ok, plough, if you insist) to commit to the long, brave struggle against prejudice, discrimination and persecution: Keep your Eyes on the Prize. That’s the spirit. Persuade voters that reaching the mountain top is worth the testing climb.
That still leaves the far-from-trivial issue of the mandate. Even with the comfort of helpful poll figures, I would not like to fill the shoes of any minister defending a big, bold manifesto-busting deal with Brussels before the next election. To implement such a deal without some kind of electoral endorsement would be plainly undemocratic. However, there is no chance of the rejoin journey reaching its destination before 2029. The strategy should be clarity now about the ambition to rejoin the EU, and an effective campaign to win a mandate at the next election for following it through.
If Labour once again achieves a majority, the mandate will be clear-cut. But if Labour needs the support of other parties, then there may well be plenty of MPs – Liberal Democrat, Green, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP and Alliance in Northern Ireland – that could supply the votes it may need at Westminster. Can they put aside their rivalries to come together in a common cause?
All in all, the challenge of Europe will be a test not only of Labour’s clarity and courage, but of the ability of progressives in our fractured, multiparty system to come together when necessary to take the big decisions the country needs.
The author’s substack is free to access.
