How Labour should handle the looming debate on Brexit

Labour cannot afford their own version of the Tory madness that paralysed politics

The New Statesman’s Ailbhe Rea has an interesting cover story this week on the internal Labour Party debate over Europe. I won’t go over the ground she has covered here, but encourage you to read for yourself.

In a nutshell, there are people who think that modern geopolitics, domestic economics and myriad other factors have created the space for Labour to take a more pro-European line than that currently taken by Keir Starmer and co. If his leadership is successfully challenged after the local elections later this year, that debate over how far Labour’s EU ambitions should go could well go into overdrive. Again, I encourage you to read Ailbhe’s comprehensive insider story here.

As someone who covered the Brexit negotiations from both London and Brussels, obviously, the prospect of anything Britain-EU inevitably gets me thinking about how that debate might play out and what might be the possible pitfalls.

My position post-2024 election has been that Starmer’s very slow and cautious reset, where the government seeks to lay lots of stepping stones towards a closer relationship over time, is probably the right move given the volatility of both European and British politics.

I am still broadly of that view. However, if Labour does insist on having this debate – which I agree will go into overdrive should Starmer be challenged for the leadership – then those wanting to have that debate should start thinking now about how it takes place. That means understanding the parameters of what is possible, what you ultimately want and how it could hurt or help your wider electoral prospects.

A binary question

If the Europe question is raised before the next election, there should be no more than two factions in the Labour Party. One should be the current Starmer position of slow and steady progress largely within the current red lines, possibly with some room for flexibility (more on that later).

The other should be a full-fat, maximalist pro-EUism, maybe even going so far as to rejoin the bloc itself. It is this second option I want to focus on.

The maximalists need to decide early on what their stated preferred outcome is. To do that, they must first – before anything else – work out where the EU itself stands on all this.

The central misconception in British debates is that this is still primarily a British choice.

Talk to the Commission, of course, about the practicalities as they see it of rejoining any institutions or applying to rejoin the bloc. But also speak to member states, analysts, members of the European Parliament, about what they think might be palatable and under what conditions.

It is worth remembering that from an institutional standpoint, the EU is broadly OK with where the UK-EU relationship is. Their position is that the Windsor Framework solved a lot of the leftover problems from the initial post-Brexit deal and they are not seeking to make any changes.

Even the small steps Starmer has taken in his reset efforts have frustrated European diplomats and officials who cannot bear the idea of re-entering protracted negotiations with the UK. As has been recently reported, Brussels would want a “Farage clause” on any new deals put in place to remove the possibility of a future PM ripping up agreements.

Maximalists might say that the best way around that is to end the baby steps and push to rejoin the EU in full, removing the prospect of different governments tearing things up. That might be true if Britain were suddenly fully back inside the EU – it is hard to see even Farage bothering to go through the Article 50 process again – but the process of joining probably would take more than two election cycles in the UK.

In all likelihood, that probably means a mandate would be required – either through another referendum or general election – for any new maximalist British position (even one short of full membership) to be taken seriously by Brussels.

What a maximalist wants

Rejoining the bloc as a full member is obviously the most extreme end of the spectrum. In 2026, that would mean joining up to parts of the EU that we had previously stayed outside – think Schengen, adopting the euro, stuff like that. We wouldn’t have to sign up to either immediately, but the trajectory would be unavoidable.

I suspect that is why we get people advocating things like joining the single market or a customs union rather than full membership.

The truth is that either of these options would come with enormous headaches and their own procedural difficulties that, once fully weighed up, are probably not that different in practical terms from just applying to rejoin in full.

I won’t go into the full details now, but rejoining the single market, in practical terms, would probably mean joining EFTA, which would not be an easy negotiation, involving both the EU and existing EFTA members. It would sign the UK up as a rule taker, without a meaningful say over single market policy — a very hard pill to swallow politically. The UK would also remain subject to ECJ-aligned jurisprudence via the EFTA Court.

(Note: I am deliberately not discussing the Swiss-style bilateral model, or something similarly tailored to the UK, here. That approach — incremental, sector-by-sector alignment — is broadly where Starmer’s cautious reset appears to be heading. I don’t think this is a bad outcome in itself. But it is not, and should not be presented as, a credible endpoint for those arguing for a maximalist pro-EU position.)

On the customs union, it would impact the trade deals we have signed since leaving the EU and risk potential fallout with the likes of America. You might think that is worth it, and that’s a perfectly fine position to take, but you would have to be honest about it being a trade-off that might not materially bring that much benefit.

For these reasons and more, the maximalists would have to agree on what their desired eventual outcome is and stick to it once the lid has been ripped off the can of worms. Something no one can really afford is for a Labour version of the Tory Brexit battles, where people in parliament make lots of noise about subtly different positions that ultimately have no bearing when it comes to negotiating with the EU. It absolutely paralysed parliament when we were in the process of leaving the EU and it could be even messier in the reverse – which would look awful to voters.

The politics of it all

While I maintain that the slow and steady approach is right, I think it is reasonable that some in the Labour Party think the current state of domestic and international politics has allowed space for the Brexit question to be asked once again.

The logic of the Starmer approach is to improve relations, something that is popular with most voters, without spooking the horses or risk being called a sellout.

Where we currently are – Reform leading polls but Brexit and its consequences being wholly unpopular – is a bit of a paradox. Obviously there is a chance that by going all-in on Europe you risk pissing off a huge chunk of voters. But the promise of another referendum after the next election or something similar could change the national discourse and force Nigel Farage, the last Brexiteer standing, onto territory he wants to avoid.

It could be very dangerous and backfire on Labour, sure. But if they really want to have this debate, then they probably need to have it as cleanly, transparently and honestly as possible. To my mind, that means there are only two positions that can be taken with any degree of sense or credibility: stick with Starmer’s slow approach or be honest and say that your ultimate end game is Britain returning to the EU.

With the 10 year anniversary coming up, there are real opportunities to point out all the failures of Brexit and pin a lot of it on Farage. It might be possible to get people thinking positively about Europe again and by offering voters an option to turn back time, maybe there is a world in which the maximalist position makes the most sense for Labour as they get closer to the next general election.

I am sure that proper EU/Brexit brains will find holes in what I have said, so please feel free to tell me where I have gone wrong.

Until next time.