The United Kingdom’s accession to the European Economic Community on January 1, 1973 – following two failed applications in the 1960s – revealed a deep ambivalence toward European integration that persisted throughout its 47-year membership. Contemporary policy decisions continue to be shaped by this legacy: a pattern of reluctant participation followed by strategic engagement. Labour’s current European policy, viewed through this historical lens, reflects a return to pragmatic incrementalism reminiscent of the Wilson and Heath governments.

The 1975 referendum, in which 67% of Britons voted to remain in the EEC, demonstrated that European membership could secure broad public support when framed in economic – not political – terms. Labour’s current strategy appears to follow this precedent, emphasizing practical cooperation over constitutional entanglement. This approach suggests that while full reintegration remains politically untenable, there may be public tolerance for incremental alignment if articulated through the lens of national interest.

Historically, successive British governments have sought to maximize economic advantages while limiting political integration. This balancing act became particularly strained after the Maastricht Treaty, which introduced EU citizenship and laid the groundwork for the euro. In the decades that followed, the UK’s desire for market access increasingly clashed with resistance to deepening political union – contradictions that culminated in Brexit.

The 2016 decision to leave the European Union was driven largely by concerns over sovereignty and immigration. The Leave campaign characterized the EU as a centralizing bureaucracy that diluted national control through successive treaties. These narratives continue to influence political discourse, placing constraints on Labour’s room for maneuver. The party must now address Brexit’s economic fallout while appearing to uphold the democratic mandate behind it.

Labour’s current position is an attempt to reconcile these tensions. It accepts political separation from the EU while seeking to maximize functional cooperation. Yet this approach faces familiar challenges: pro-EU constituencies demand bolder steps toward reintegration, while Eurosceptics remain wary of even modest alignment. This polarization could create a vacuum in the political center, potentially exploitable by rival parties in the lead-up to the next general election.

This delicate recalibration is unfolding amid global uncertainty. Shifting alliances, security crises, and evolving trade dynamics have prompted a reassessment of Britain’s role within Europe and the transatlantic partnership. Labour’s policy reflects this context. Its manifesto commitment to “deepen ties with our European friends, neighbours and allies” – while explicitly ruling out rejoining the single market, customs union, or freedom of movement – marks an attempt to define a post-Brexit framework for constructive engagement.

The Starmer government’s stated aim of an “ambitious reset” in UK–EU relations has opened space for unprecedented cooperation outside the formal structures of membership. Public sentiment appears receptive to this approach: recent polling shows a majority of Britons favour closer relations with the EU, even without rejoining.

Labour’s case for reengagement has been strengthened by external developments. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has raised concerns over tariffs and NATO security commitments, reinforcing perceptions of shared values and interests between the UK and EU in an era of global instability. These changes have underscored the strategic necessity of renewed cooperation.

The Russia–Ukraine war has also shifted the geopolitical calculus in Europe. Defense cooperation is no longer a political preference, but a strategic imperative. In this context, Labour has negotiated for the UK defense industry’s participation in the EU’s proposed €150 billion defense fund. In exchange, the UK agreed to extend EU access to British territorial waters until 2038. While this represents a significant step toward defense integration, unresolved issues remain – notably around youth mobility schemes, where discussions have stalled despite parallels with UK arrangements with Australia and New Zealand.

Meanwhile, broader geopolitical competition with China is accelerating calls for coordination among Western allies. Concerns around supply chains, critical technologies, and infrastructure security are pushing the UK and EU toward pragmatic convergence. Labour’s framing of these issues in economic rather than ideological terms may allow for politically sustainable cooperation that avoids the integrationist rhetoric of the pre-Brexit era.

Yet, the domestic political landscape remains volatile. The rising popularity of Reform UK under Nigel Farage – a key figure in the Brexit movement – adds pressure. Farage’s re-entry into mainstream politics could harden opposition to European alignment and frame Labour’s policies as a backdoor to rejoining the EU. His success could limit Labour’s ability to build a cross-party consensus for closer cooperation, forcing the government to defend its policies against charges of betraying the Brexit mandate.

Labour’s strategy, therefore, is as much about domestic positioning as it is about external diplomacy. Navigating the space between national sovereignty and international coordination requires sensitivity to grassroots sentiment and elite policymaking alike. Starmer’s team appears to understand that policy success will depend not only on economic outcomes, but also on political messaging that affirms Britain’s autonomy while promoting shared strategic interests.

Even so, the trajectory of UK–EU relations under Labour may be shaped by factors beyond Westminster’s control. Political changes within the EU, shifts in global trade patterns, or new security emergencies could accelerate or constrain further alignment. The outcome of sector-specific agreements – whether in defense, trade, education, or energy – will influence public perception and either build momentum for closer ties or entrench post-Brexit skepticism.

Ultimately, Labour’s European policy is not a reversal of Brexit, but a reimagining of Britain’s place in a world defined by interdependence. The longer-term implications of this strategy reach beyond UK–EU relations to touch broader debates about sovereignty, democracy, and the future of integration in the 21st century. Whether this approach proves sustainable will depend on Labour’s ability to manage competing political pressures while navigating an evolving international order.

By Yonas Yizezew,Researcher,Horn Review