French finance minister Roland Lescure wants the UK back in the EU (Image: Getty)
A French minister’s call for Britain to reverse Brexit and rejoin the European Union has triggered a furious response, with the bloc accused of seeing the UK as “a place to plunder”. Roland Lescure, France’s finance minister, urged Britons to rejoin the EU as Prime Minister Andy Burnham prepares to lay out options for the UK’s future relationship with Europe.
Mr Lescure urged the country to go “all the way” and rejoin, stressing that Britain can “come back any time”. He said the choice was for the people of the UK, but said Britain’s departure from the EU was “very sad”. Leading Brexiteer and former Thatcher aide Lord Redwood warned: “The UK cannot afford to rejoin the EU. It is a slow-growth zone weighed down by high taxes, big EU charges, large debts and too many anti-business rules.
“By leaving, we are saving billions each year on membership fees and do not have to pay for our share of the EU’s growing debt mountain. The EU sees us as Treasure Island, a place to plunder to help pay their excessive bills.”
Former defence secretary Dame Penny Mordaunt insisted it was not in Britain’s interests to become a member state again, saying: “Many European politicians miss having us in the EU, but any decision the UK takes about our future must be based on what is in our interests, and rejoining or taking any trade-inhibiting constraints is clearly not in our interests. So, non merci.”
Former defence secretary Penny Mordaunt opposes returning to the EU (Image: Getty)
David Campbell Bannerman, a former deputy leader of UKIP who served as an MEP, predicted there was more chance of France leaving the EU than Britain rejoining. “Actually, I am looking forward to welcoming France back as a proud independent sovereign nation again outside of the EU,” he said. “That is the direction of travel, not rejoin.” If France left, he said, it would “game over” for the bloc.
Christopher Howarth, who has worked at the heart of the European Research Group, warned: “The UK would have to pay tens of billions into the EU every year if it rejoined, accept EU laws and regulations, hand over its fish, drop all its own trade agreements and potentially join the euro. France, meanwhile, is engulfed with riots and is teetering on the edge of a financial crisis big enough to sink the euro. It’s no surprise France would now like to invite the UK to share in its mess.”
Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK, said: “The British public had their say in 2016 and chose Brexit. They don’t want a return to free movement, and they definitely don’t want billions being sent to Brussels in return for suffocating rules and regulations, regardless of what the French say.”
Alex Burghart, Shadow Chancellor of the Dutchy of the Lancaster, said: “Our people-pleaser prime minister should be wary of these overtures, because closer alignment with the EU comes with a cost, as Labour’s flawed EU reset is already showing. We should not reopen settled arguments about Brexit when the priority must be tackling the structural problems holding back our economy, from Labour’s ballooning welfare bill to weak growth.”
The French minister’s intervention came ahead of Mr Burnham meeting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin. Mr Merz pledged to “do anything” possible to “bring the UK closer” to the EU.
He said: “From our German side, I can assure you that we will do anything what we can do to bring the UK closer and closer back to Europe, to the European continent, to the European Union.”
Mr Burnham said: “The time has come to think more seriously about growth, and obviously we know growth can come from that closer relationship. We have a UK-EU summit in front of us before the end of the year and I think it is important that we can show that growth comes from co-operation, as I believe it can do, as well as facing joint challenges together… It feels to me that the world as it is, is bringing us closer together. It’s making us more closely aligned. We already are very close partners, but UK and Germany becomes a more important axis as we go into the next next period.”
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Fury Over French Minister’s Comments on UK Rejoining EU as Brexit Debate Erupts Again
Fresh controversy has erupted over Britain’s relationship with the European Union after comments attributed to a French minister about the possibility of the United Kingdom rejoining the bloc reignited one of the country’s most divisive political debates. Years after Brexit transformed Britain’s relationship with Europe, the question of whether the country should reconsider its departure remains a source of fierce disagreement among politicians, business leaders and voters.
For supporters of Brexit, the prospect of rejoining the EU represents a deeply unwelcome attempt to reopen a political argument they believe was settled by the British public. They insist that leaving the bloc was a democratic decision that successive governments have a responsibility to respect. For those who favour closer European integration, however, renewed discussions about membership reflect concerns about trade barriers, economic growth and Britain’s influence on the international stage.
The reaction to the French minister’s reported comments illustrates how sensitive the issue remains. Even the suggestion that Britain could eventually return to the EU is capable of provoking strong responses, particularly when it comes from a politician representing one of the country’s closest European neighbours.
At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question: should Britain concentrate on making Brexit work, or should it consider a future in which closer integration with Europe becomes a political priority once again?
Why French Comments Have Reignited the Debate
Relations between London and Paris have frequently been complicated by disagreements over migration, fishing rights, defence cooperation, trade and the future of European integration. Although the two countries remain important allies, their governments have often approached major political questions from different perspectives.
France has traditionally supported a stronger and more integrated European Union. From Paris’s perspective, the EU provides a framework through which European countries can coordinate economic policy, negotiate internationally and respond collectively to geopolitical challenges.
Britain, by contrast, spent decades arguing over the appropriate balance between European cooperation and national sovereignty before the 2016 referendum produced a vote to leave the bloc.
Consequently, comments from a French political figure suggesting that Britain might eventually rejoin the EU can easily be interpreted in different ways. Supporters of closer ties may regard such remarks as an invitation to reconsider an increasingly complicated relationship. Brexit supporters may see them as evidence that some European politicians still hope Britain will reverse its decision.
The political sensitivity is heightened by the fact that rejoining would not simply mean restoring the arrangements that existed before Brexit. Britain would need to negotiate the terms of any new membership, and the EU’s political and economic circumstances have changed since the United Kingdom departed.
Any suggestion that rejoining would be straightforward therefore risks overlooking a complicated legal, economic and diplomatic process.
Brexit Supporters Warn Against Reopening Old Wounds
For many Brexit supporters, the referendum remains the central democratic argument against returning to the European Union.
The 2016 vote produced a narrow majority in favour of leaving, with approximately 52 per cent voting Leave and 48 per cent voting Remain. The result followed years of political disagreement about immigration, sovereignty, economic regulation and Britain’s place in Europe.
Brexit campaigners argued that leaving would enable the UK to exercise greater control over its laws, borders and trade policy. They also maintained that the country could pursue an independent international strategy rather than automatically aligning itself with EU decisions.
Critics of the French minister’s reported remarks argue that reopening the membership question would risk creating another prolonged period of political uncertainty. They contend that businesses and households need stable policies rather than another divisive national argument about the country’s constitutional direction.
Some Brexit supporters also argue that Britain should focus on addressing the practical shortcomings of its post-Brexit arrangements rather than abandoning the project altogether. In their view, the government should seek to reduce unnecessary trade barriers, strengthen domestic industries and negotiate beneficial international partnerships.
Their position is not necessarily that cooperation with Europe should end. Rather, they maintain that cooperation does not require membership of the EU’s political institutions.
This distinction is important because Britain continues to maintain extensive relationships with European countries in areas including security, intelligence, trade and defence.
The Economic Argument for Closer European Ties
Those advocating closer relations with the EU counter that Brexit has created economic difficulties that cannot simply be dismissed.
Leaving the bloc introduced additional administrative requirements for many businesses trading across the UK-EU border. Companies that previously operated within a common regulatory and customs framework have had to navigate new documentation, compliance requirements and arrangements for moving certain goods.
Smaller businesses can find these obligations particularly burdensome because they often lack the resources available to multinational companies. Some firms have reduced their European operations or reconsidered whether particular markets remain commercially attractive.
Supporters of closer integration argue that reducing these barriers could improve trade, encourage investment and strengthen economic cooperation. They also point to the importance of the European market for British manufacturers, agricultural producers, financial services and other industries.
However, the economic debate is more complicated than a simple choice between Brexit and rejoining.
The UK’s economic performance is influenced by numerous factors, including domestic productivity, housing costs, workforce skills, public investment, global economic conditions and government policy. It is therefore difficult to attribute every economic problem to Brexit or to assume that EU membership alone would resolve the country’s challenges.
A serious assessment of rejoining would need to examine the potential economic benefits alongside the costs, regulatory obligations and negotiating conditions associated with membership.
For voters concerned about living standards, the essential question is whether a proposed change would produce measurable improvements in wages, employment opportunities, prices and public services.
Immigration and National Sovereignty Remain Central Issues
Immigration was one of the most important issues in the Brexit referendum, and it would almost certainly return to the centre of any debate about rejoining the EU.
Before Brexit, EU freedom of movement allowed citizens of member states to live and work in other participating countries under common rules. Leaving the bloc enabled the UK to introduce a different immigration framework for European citizens.
Brexit supporters regard this change as a significant expression of national sovereignty. They argue that decisions about immigration should be made by the British government in accordance with domestic priorities and democratic accountability.
Those favouring closer European integration respond that migration arrangements can bring economic benefits, help employers recruit workers and give British citizens greater opportunities to live and work across Europe.
Yet rejoining the EU would raise difficult questions about the conditions under which Britain could return. The United Kingdom could not simply assume that its previous arrangements would automatically be restored. The terms would have to be negotiated, and existing EU membership rules would be central to those discussions.
This makes the debate particularly challenging for any British government attempting to balance demands for closer European cooperation with public concerns about border control.
A government that advocates a fundamental change in the UK’s relationship with Europe would need to explain precisely what that change would mean for immigration policy and how it would be justified to voters.
Could Britain Actually Rejoin the EU?
Although the possibility of British re-entry is regularly discussed in political commentary, rejoining would be a major undertaking rather than an immediate policy option.
Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, a European country seeking membership must apply to join and satisfy the relevant accession requirements. The process involves negotiations and the agreement of EU member states under the applicable rules.
Britain would therefore need to secure political support across the bloc and negotiate the conditions of its return. The final arrangements could differ substantially from the special provisions the UK enjoyed before Brexit.
Questions concerning the euro, budget contributions, regulatory alignment, freedom of movement and the UK’s future influence within EU institutions would all require careful consideration.
It is also important to distinguish between full membership and closer cooperation. Britain could pursue agreements covering trade, security, research, energy and other areas without seeking to become an EU member again.
For politicians who want to improve relations with European partners while avoiding another membership battle, this distinction may provide a more practical starting point.
Nevertheless, closer cooperation can involve difficult compromises of its own. The extent to which Britain would need to align with European rules, and what influence it would have over those rules, would depend on the particular agreement being negotiated.
Labour Faces a Difficult Political Balancing Act
The controversy also presents a challenge for the British Labour Party, which must balance economic arguments for closer European cooperation against the political risks of appearing to reverse Brexit.
Many businesses and pro-European voters favour stronger ties with the EU. They argue that improving relations could help support investment, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and create opportunities for British workers.
Other voters, including some who supported Brexit, may welcome practical improvements in the relationship but remain strongly opposed to renewed membership discussions.
Labour therefore faces a delicate task when discussing Britain’s future in Europe. It can argue for better cooperation and reduced barriers without necessarily advocating a return to the EU. However, any proposal that appears to move towards closer integration may attract accusations that the government is gradually undoing Brexit.
The political consequences could be significant if voters believe that major decisions about the country’s future are being made without a clear democratic mandate.
A credible approach would require ministers to explain the objectives of any proposed agreement, identify the compromises involved and demonstrate how the arrangements would benefit the public.
Simply suggesting that closer ties are economically desirable is not enough. Voters would want to know what Britain would gain, what it might have to concede and whether the benefits would justify the costs.
Nigel Farage and the Political Opportunity
The prospect of Britain rejoining the EU could also provide an opportunity for Brexit-supporting politicians, particularly Nigel Farage and Reform UK, to strengthen their message on national sovereignty.
Farage has built much of his political career around opposition to European integration and support for leaving the EU. Any renewed discussion of rejoining could allow him to argue that established political parties remain unwilling to accept the referendum result.
Reform UK could use the controversy to appeal to voters who believe Brexit should be protected and that Britain must resist pressure to return to the EU’s political framework.
However, the issue would not automatically guarantee political gains for Brexit supporters. Voters have varied priorities, and many are more concerned about the cost of living, public services, immigration and economic growth than the technical details of Britain’s relationship with Brussels.
The effectiveness of any political response would therefore depend on whether the parties could connect the European debate to the everyday concerns of households.
For Reform UK, the challenge would be to present a credible programme for improving Britain’s economic prospects outside the EU rather than relying solely on opposition to rejoining.
For Labour and the Conservatives, the challenge would be to explain how Britain can maintain constructive European relationships without reopening divisions that have dominated politics for years.
Conclusion: A Debate Britain Has Not Fully Left Behind
The fury surrounding the French minister’s reported comments demonstrates that Brexit remains an unresolved political fault line, even though the United Kingdom has formally left the European Union.
For Brexit supporters, the suggestion of rejoining raises concerns about democratic accountability, national sovereignty and the possibility of repeating years of political conflict. For advocates of closer integration, it highlights questions about trade, investment and Britain’s long-term position in Europe.
Both sides face a responsibility to make their arguments honestly. Brexit cannot be assessed solely through promises of independence, just as rejoining cannot be justified solely through claims that closer integration would solve Britain’s economic problems.
The country needs a serious discussion about the practical consequences of its choices. That means examining trade figures, investment, employment, immigration arrangements and the costs of regulatory change rather than relying on slogans or political outrage.
For now, comments from a French minister are unlikely, by themselves, to determine Britain’s future relationship with the EU. Any move towards rejoining would require a major political commitment in the UK and a demanding negotiation with European partners.
The larger lesson is that Britain’s relationship with Europe will continue to matter long after the referendum and formal departure. Whether the country chooses closer cooperation or maintains its current position outside the bloc, its leaders will have to explain how their decisions serve the national interest.
Until that happens, every suggestion of rejoining is likely to reignite the argument over Brexit, exposing the divisions that British politics has never entirely managed to put behind it.