UK, EU should work together to minimize Brexit damage

Changes in the UK are slow in coming. It is a country more comfortable with evolution than revolution and even the political earthquake of leaving the EU, better known as Brexit, was slow burning, though it still left scorched earth behind it.

The end of January marked exactly five years since the UK officially left the EU and the British people are becoming increasingly disappointed with the outcome of this collective act of political, social and economic self-harm. However, no one is brave or bold enough to start a process that will minimize the damage caused by Brexit, with or without an outlook of one day rejoining the EU.

Back in 2016, while still a relatively unknown politician serving as a junior shadow minister, Keir Starmer resigned from the shadow Cabinet in protest at the then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s lack of a “louder voice on the critical issues of renegotiating the UK’s place in the world and mitigating the damaging impact of our exit from Europe.”

Although Starmer now holds the most powerful job in the country, he is hesitant to take firm steps toward closer ties with Europe

Yossi Mekelberg

Several years later, after returning to the front bench as shadow Brexit secretary, Starmer pledged that in the first Queen’s Speech of a Labour government, “we will immediately introduce legislation for a referendum to take place.” Losing the 2019 general election made this promise redundant, but it still left no doubt that Starmer’s heart is in Europe, not only for sentimental reasons but because of the price of being outside it. Although he now holds the most powerful job in the country, he is hesitant to take firm steps toward closer ties with Europe.

A study by Aston University Business School found that, between 2021 and 2023, UK goods exports to the EU were down 27 percent and imported goods 32 percent lower than they would have been had Brexit not happened. These are staggering figures, especially for an economy that is extremely slow-growing.

Starmer is known for being a cautious politician and the closer he came to power, the more cautious he became. As a result, even the most ardent British Europhiles held little hope that Labour’s return to power last summer meant that Brexit was going to be reversed, despite the party’s landslide victory. The issue is still too sensitive, even toxic, for anyone to sincerely consider.

Yet, because Starmer and other Cabinet ministers have repeatedly asserted since the very early days of their return to power that “resetting” relations with the EU is top of their agenda, they have created expectations of some specific action plan — hopes that have not materialized thus far. On the contrary, no progress is being made even on relatively popular ideas such as a youth mobility scheme or committing to voluntary alignment with EU regulations on goods, not to mention rejoining the common market.

For decades, Brits and their European counterparts enjoyed the freedom of open borders between them, to work and study and scientifically and culturally collaborate, which created many employment and business opportunities, in addition to broadening their horizons. Brexit abruptly cut these ties without putting any satisfactory mitigating schemes in place.

When the EU’s primary executive arm, the European Commission, proposed last year to open negotiations with the UK on an agreement to facilitate youth mobility, London remained undecided about it. Youth mobility is hardly controversial and is politically expedient for Labour since its supporters tend to be younger.

Relations need to enter a new phase, through which a new international regime is established between Brussels and London

The lack of appetite for reopening the Brexit debate is completely understandable but cannot be justified. Its toxicity opened the way for the most populist elements in British politics to gain credence and influence. Moreover, as long as this government cannot credibly address the issue of migration, it will be exposed to venomous attacks from right-wing politicians and their client media for making any overtures toward Europe.

Yet, at the same time, opinion polls are conclusive that when it comes to economic or other international ties: for Brits, the EU is a priority. In a recent poll, 44 percent of respondents supported the notion that the EU should be the government’s top priority when it comes to trade, whereas less than half this number (19 percent) would opt for privileging the US and only 4 percent think the focus should be on China.

This comes as no surprise considering, for instance, that one report has suggested that the cost of Brexit to the UK’s economy has so far been £140 billion ($172 billion). The debate in the UK over membership of the EU was always split down the middle. After all, the 2016 referendum tilted toward “leave” by just 52 percent to 48 percent. However, now, according to YouGov, 55 percent of Britons say it was wrong for the UK to leave the EU, with just 11 percent seeing Brexit as more of a success than a failure.

Since a reversal of Brexit could hardly happen in the very short term, mitigating its damage is paramount considering the commonality of interests, for the EU as much as the UK. Shared interests include how the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East might conclude, ensuring energy and cyber security, and tackling gangs of human traffickers.

Therefore, relations need to enter a new phase, through which a new international regime is established between Brussels and London. The essence of the EU is the free movement of people, goods and capital across the bloc. For the UK, it is the movement of people that is the most problematic. But should it be prepared to make concessions on this issue, as in the case of youth or when it comes to science or culture, or certain businesses in the first instance, as this would likely open the way to reducing EU red tape when it comes to the trade and finance sectors of the UK? This new mechanism could seek to revive areas of cooperation that do not cause friction or attract negative publicity, while also serving as an exercise of rebuilding trust.

The UK–EU divorce was not an amicable one and there is much bitterness in Brussels, but also a realism that accepts that the EU is better off with the UK than without it. For the UK, none of the Brexiteers’ promises have materialized — not that many of us were naive enough to believe they ever would. A new EU-UK regime could assess which areas might benefit from immediate moves toward closer relations and which issues should wait for a later date. This would not be a reversal of Brexit by the backdoor but a mature approach that would seek to maximize mutual interests.

• Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg