Reset or rehash? If the EU wants the UK to rejoin, it will have to outwait Labour

Brexit as an idea is finished; at least that is what a quick look at current British public opinion suggests. According to latest polls, 57% of Britons think their government is handling the issue of Brexit badly (20% say well), 65% say Brexit has had a negative effect on the economy (10% say positive), and about 57% of respondents of multiple surveys taken so far this year want the UK to rejoin the European Union. Perhaps most damning for the Brexiteers, considering their original arguments for leaving the EU, only 6% think that Brexit has had a positive impact on the NHS or immigration while a measly 11% hold the view that leaving has been good for international trade. To put it simply, “Few Britons think Brexit has been good for anything”.

European hopes and frustration

Concomitantly, for policymakers in the European Union the most recent geopolitical developments have turned the reintegration of the United Kingdom into European structures from an economically advantageous nice-to-have into a strategic necessity for the viability of an independent Europe. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s willingness to take a leading role in finding a European solution for Ukraine is, therefore, a welcome sign for Brussels that being outside the EU does not render Britain unwilling or unable to adjust to stark geopolitical shifts in unison with its ‘continental’ partners.

However, any effort to integrate the UK into whatever structures emerge to secure the future of the European Union will face vexing – and perhaps even insurmountable – hurdles as long as the country remains outside of the EU. This makes Starmer’s EU policy particularly frustrating. Not only has he ruled out that the UK will fully rejoin the EU during his term, but even the customs union remains a ‘red line’ for the current Labour government. Instead, Labour’s ideas for a ‘reset’ include genuine but equally timid – and arguably insufficient – proposals given the contemporary challenges.

This frustration within the EU is compounded by a lack of understanding for why Starmer will not commit to more. A superficial look at the government’s current situation indeed suggests that the time should be ripe for a pro-European offensive by Labour. For one, the British public, as explained, seems more than receptive to such a policy shift nine years after the fateful referendum. Additionally, undoing Brexit should make strategic sense in several ways. It is a widely unpopular policy introduced by the opposition, seemingly making it an easy target for a reversal. Moreover, rejoining the EU would be a straightforward way to kickstart Labour’s unquestioned number one priority, economic growth. In light of these facts, the key question remains: Why is Labour so reluctant to make anything close to a bold and decisive step towards reintegrating with the European Union?

Labour’s sandcastle majority

The answer lies, as it so often does, in the details. Specifically, the answer lies in the details of the 2024 UK general election results and what they portend for the Labour Party going forward. Although Labour won an impressive 412 out of 650 seats, the second highest for any party since World War 2, it has done so with the lowest share of votes by any single-party government in British history. Actually, based on total votes alone, Keir Starmer fared worse than his predecessor Jeremy Corbyn in both 2017 and 2019. Upon taking a closer look, then, the main story of the election is a historic collapse by the Conservatives more than it is a swing towards Labour. One could commend Labour for ruthlessly maximising the disproportionality of the first-past-the-post electoral system by spreading a thin majority of votes to enough constituencies to create a thick majority of seats. After all, this is how a vote share of 33.7% translates to a seat share of 63.4% – in other words, the most disproportionate election in British general election history.

This unusual distribution of Labour’s winning constituencies lies at the heart of Starmer’s hesitancy on the issue of Brexit. The party gained a lot of seats, but a record number of them are considered marginal. What is more, it holds these narrow majorities in these new marginal seats due to the voters rejecting Tories rather than voters embracing Labour. This makes Labour’s seemingly grand majority paradoxically paralysing: The fact that its power is based on a broad but shallow sandcastle majority strongly disincentivises Labour from actions that might resonate with a majority of voters overall but might equally cause voters in these specific seats to mobilise against a bold and still controversial policy-shift like a Brexit reversal.

In other words, Labour's success in the latest election is not a result of being appealing to the broader public, but instead appearing broadly inoffensive to former Tory voters.. This perceived relative harmlessness allowed most within this disillusioned voter group to prioritise punishing the Tories (mostly by staying at home or voting Reform UK, rather than switching to Labour) over preventing a Labour government, well-knowing that teaching the Tories such a lesson would result in a strong Labour majority due to the specificities of the British electoral system. In sum, the peculiar arithmetic of Labour’s parliamentary majority has led to the seemingly paradoxical result that Labour now has little to gain but much to lose by endorsing a broadly popular idea.

Who else?

In times of grave geopolitical challenges facing Europe, it is easy for the EU to dismiss the intricacies of a national electoral system, especially one that often appears quaint to other European countries accustomed to proportional representation. However, EU leaders must realise that staying in power is the ultimate objective of any government; every other goal is predicated on having the opportunity to govern in the first place. It would hence be wise for these leaders to acknowledge the institutional constraints imposed by the election result and thus to not expect too much from Starmer’s reset. Instead, they should put their hopes in whatever follows the current Labour government after 2029.

One might look at the recent track record and current trajectory of the Tories, dismiss the idea that they could ever turn back to favouring EU membership, and come to the conclusion that if Labour is as paralysed as this article suggests, Britain rejoining the EU is doomed for the foreseeable future. However, all hope may not be lost. The Conservatives proved how quickly they can change their minds on the European issue in the early years of the integration process, when they went from spurning European integration in the 1950s to applying for membership in the 1960s and 1970s, staying on this course even after repeated membership bid rejections by Charles de Gaulle. The Liberal Democrats, historically the most pro-European force in British politics, are on the rise. While Reform UK might be a big threat to any British turn towards European integration, good polling numbers now do not guarantee anything in 2029.

So, political leaders in the European Union should neither expect anything bold from their counterparts in London until the next election nor give up hope that the UK might seek to rejoin sooner than expected after 2029. After all, British policy towards European integration has always been rather mercurial, and surprises have been the norm.

Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not constitute the official position of The Brussels Effect, which maintains its commitment as a non-partisan, independent blog.