Andrew Duff / Jan 2026
Photo: Shutterstock
One of the more depressing aspects of 2026 (so far) has been Keir Starmer's BBC Brexit interview (4 January). Attempting no doubt to cheer up his largely pro-European troops, the prime minister flagged up his intention, on the back of his nearing agreement with the EU on food and agriproducts (SPS), to seek "closer alignment with the single market" in "other areas". In truth, however, his efforts seem to be taking us back to Theresa May's White Paper of July 2018 which was so unreasonably trashed first by Boris Johnson and then Donald Trump — before being scuppered by the European Council hostile to British 'cherry-picking'.
What May could not achieve, neither will Starmer. Brussels will not allow the UK to freeload on the EU's single market. The SPS agreement and another in the electricity market are the exceptions that prove the rule, both foreseen in the Brexit Trade and Cooperation Agreement of 2020. For the rest, there will be nothing forthcoming from the EU unless Britain accepts the four principles of the internal market, including freedom of movement of peoples. The UK will also be expected to pay handsomely for any privileges, conform to EU law and obey the European Court of Justice.
The EU would be willing to negotiate a new customs union agreement with the British, which would greatly ease rules of origins requirements and customs processes for manufacturing industry. But the customs union option — promoted by the Lib Dems — is now rejected by Starmer presumably because it would mean sacrificing Trump's marginally better tariff offer for the UK than that he imposes on the EU. British alignment with EU commercial policy is not one of the "other areas" that Starmer has in mind.
Moreover, while it may have been possible for the EU to invent a new association with the UK in the immediate post-Brexit chaos, the EU has since moved away from modelling new association agreements. Michel Barnier's famous staircase is relevant no longer. Ukraine and Greenland are now Europe's priority, not the UK. The imperative is how to fast-track Ukraine into the EU as a member state on probation as part of a ceasefire deal. Upending the previous accession protocols and processes for the sake of salvaging Ukraine will have a knock-on beneficial impact for Moldova and the Western Balkan candidate countries, but it will do nothing for the British who reject the prospect of EU membership.
What about defence?
Last spring an EU-UK 'common understanding' was arrived at that once again opened up the prospect — sought by May but spurned by Johnson — of a formal security and defence agreement. Despite Starmer's prominent role in 'coalition of the willing' diplomacy, little progress has been made towards securing that essential strategic agreement. The UK, unlike Ukraine, is not part of the European Defence Industry Partnership. Unlike Canada, the UK has not agreed its participation in the EU's new €150 bn loan programme, Security Action for Europe (SAFE). Britain does not participate in the European Defence Agency or profit from the European Defence Fund. It lacks credibility in the development of the EU's Permanent Structured Cooperation in defence. The UK cannot participate in EU common security and defence policy missions. So far Britain is not punching its weight in integrating Europe's industrial supply chains for arms procurement, or in identifying capability gaps.
Starmer's name appears in many media pronouncements by the European Council on the Ukraine war. But the UK does not join the EU in its new €90 bn scheme for funding Kyiv in 2026-27. Having surrendered its once prominent role in the work of the EU institutions, the UK plays no part in the work of the EU's Political and Security Committee or of military chiefs (EUMC). Of course, the UK clings as ever to NATO. But as NATO's role is increasingly imperilled by Trump and his delinquent cronies, the UK's estrangement from the EU becomes untenable.
One may wonder why the British prime minister does not talk about these strategic things in his New Year message. Instead of the weary reiteration of unworkable proposals to align casually with the EU's market, Starmer would have done better to reclaim Britain's seat at Europe's top table. Britain back as a member of the EU would have a critical say in EU policy development and in shaping the regulatory framework for which the prime minister hankers.
Brexit deprived the EU of the largely creditable and committed contributions of British Commissioners, officials, judges and MEPs: they are still missed in Brussels. Brexit demoted the UK in the global rankings and lost the EU a second permanent seat at the UN Security Council. At this time of international peril and turbulence, Britain's lowly third-country status is keenly felt by its friends and allies. It is most unfortunate that Starmer rests in thrall to Britain's right-wing national sovereigntists — many of whom are clearly bonkers — while he could and should be a champion of Europe's sovereign autonomy and of liberal democratic values the world over.
