Brexiteers fear the PM is intent on pushing the UK back into the EU’s ‘orbit’ (Image: POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
Leading figures who helped secure Britain’s exit from the European Union will assemble in London next month in a new “Brexit fightback”. Veteran Brexiteers are appalled by Sir Keir Starmer’s plans for a “reset” of relations with the European Union and fear the Labour leader is intent on putting the UK back in Brussels’s orbit.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves last month used a landmark lecture to set out plans for greater “alignment” with EU regulations, stating that while there are areas where “regulatory autonomy may be necessary” that be “the exception, not the norm”.
YouGov polling shows just over half the population (53%) would support rejoining the EU. This is true for 83% of Labour supporters, 82% of Greens and 84% of Liberal Democrats, but just 39% of Conservatives and 18% of Reform UK backers.
Figures include former Chief Brexit Negotiator Lord Frost, arch-eurosceptic Sir Bill Cash, former Labour minister Baroness Hoey and leading Thatcherite Lord Redwood will come together for the Freedom Association’s “Brexit Unleashed” conference.
Lord Frost said: “This conference is the start of the Brexit fightback. The Remain campaign never gave up and now wants to rejoin. Keir Starmer’s ‘reset’ is an attempt to begin this process to smuggle Britain back into the EU orbit without proper democratic scrutiny. He has forgotten that over 17 million people voted for Brexit nearly 10 years ago and they want their vote to be respected. “Britain needs a leader now who believes in national independence and wants to get the benefits, not someone who is constantly genuflecting to Brussels and blaming Brexit for his own incompetence.”
Lord Frost believes Brexit is at stake (Image: STEVE FINN PHOTOGRAPHY)
David Campbell Bannerman, chairman of the Freedom Association, said: “We have never had true believers in charge or a true Brexiteer Government, no official policy promoting the genuine benefits of Brexit or even really pursuing them with vigour. This has allowed false narratives and dodgy claims about so-called Brexit shocks to take hold as accepted facts.
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 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
“In the referendum, Project Fear failed; now we have Project Mislead from Rejoiners. We’re fighting back and holding the first Brexit Unleashed conference to demand that the many positives of Brexit are finally honestly acknowledged and that Brexit opportunities are fully taken advantage of to ensure the independence of our nation and the prosperity of free Britons.
“There is no need for any EU reset – just a need to truly embrace Brexit opportunities at last.”
‘Brexit Fightback’ Begins as Veterans Reunite to Stop Keir Starmer’s EU Reset Plan
Britain’s long-running Brexit debate has returned to the political spotlight, with veteran campaigners preparing to challenge Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s efforts to rebuild relations with the European Union. The emerging campaign is being presented by its supporters as a new fight to defend the result of the 2016 referendum and prevent the UK from gradually moving back towards closer European integration.
For those who campaigned to leave the EU, the dispute is about more than trade agreements or diplomatic relations. They believe Brexit was a decision to restore British control over laws, borders and national policy, and they fear that Starmer’s proposed reset could weaken those gains without another public vote.
The government, however, argues that improving relations with European partners is necessary to support economic growth, reduce unnecessary barriers to trade and strengthen cooperation on security. Ministers have maintained that closer practical cooperation does not mean reversing Brexit.
The confrontation is therefore developing around a fundamental question: can Britain rebuild its relationship with Europe while preserving the political and legal independence that Brexit was intended to secure?
Brexit veterans prepare to return to the battlefield
The phrase “Brexit fightback” reflects the determination of some prominent Leave campaigners to return to an issue that has shaped British politics for more than a decade.
During the 2016 referendum, the Leave campaign brought together politicians, activists and voters with different reasons for supporting departure from the European Union. Some wanted greater control over immigration, others prioritised parliamentary sovereignty, and many believed Britain could negotiate its own international trade agreements outside the bloc.
The referendum result, in which Leave received approximately 52 per cent of the vote, became one of the defining moments in modern British political history.
Britain formally left the EU in January 2020 and subsequently departed from its single market and customs union arrangements at the end of that year. Yet Brexit did not end the debate over Europe. Instead, it transformed the argument from whether Britain should leave into how the country should manage its relationship with its largest nearby trading partner.
Now, campaigners opposed to Starmer’s European reset are seeking to make that distinction central to the political debate.
Their concern is that agreements presented as technical cooperation could gradually lead to closer alignment with EU regulations, new financial commitments or arrangements that limit the freedom of future British governments to change policy.
For these campaigners, the question is whether the government is respecting the spirit of the referendum result as well as the formal fact that Britain has left the EU.
The precise organisation, membership and activities of any newly reassembled campaign should be assessed through confirmed public announcements. Nevertheless, the wider political tension is clear: Brexit remains an issue capable of bringing together politicians and activists who disagree on many other matters.
What does Keir Starmer’s EU reset involve?
Starmer’s government has argued that Britain needs a more constructive relationship with the European Union after years of tension and negotiation.
The government’s approach has focused on practical cooperation in areas such as trade, security, defence, energy and other shared interests. The stated objective is to make the relationship work more effectively without reversing the UK’s departure from the bloc.
The distinction matters because Brexit did not eliminate the economic and geographical connections between Britain and Europe. British businesses continue to trade with European customers, supply chains cross national borders, and security threats often require cooperation between governments.
Supporters of a reset argue that a more stable relationship could help businesses plan for the future, reduce certain administrative burdens and make it easier for Britain and its European partners to respond to common challenges.
They also argue that the relationship deteriorated unnecessarily during periods of political confrontation. In their view, a government can defend national interests more effectively through negotiation than through repeated public disputes.
However, the term “reset” covers several possible arrangements, and each has different implications. Cooperation on defence is not the same as accepting common product regulations, while an agreement to reduce food-trade barriers could involve different obligations from participation in a shared market.
The details of individual agreements are therefore crucial. Broad political language alone cannot establish whether a particular arrangement would strengthen or constrain British decision-making.
Why Brexit campaigners are concerned
Opponents of closer EU alignment argue that Britain should not gradually accept obligations it deliberately chose to leave behind.
One of their central concerns is regulatory alignment. If the UK agrees to follow particular EU standards to facilitate trade, campaigners may fear that British businesses and ministers will have less freedom to introduce different rules in the future.
They also question whether the benefits of reduced trade barriers would justify any financial contributions, oversight arrangements or restrictions attached to an agreement.
For some Leave supporters, these issues go directly to parliamentary sovereignty. They believe laws affecting Britain should be decided by institutions accountable to British voters rather than through arrangements that give European bodies influence over domestic policy.
Immigration is another sensitive issue. Although the EU reset is not automatically equivalent to restoring free movement, campaigners may be concerned about any future proposals that increase mobility between Britain and European countries.
These fears reflect the broader legacy of the referendum campaign, when control over borders and the ability to determine national policy were prominent arguments for leaving.
However, the consequences of the reset cannot be determined simply by its name. Whether a proposal changes immigration rules, regulatory authority or financial obligations depends on its actual terms.
A credible opposition campaign would therefore need to identify the specific agreements it objects to and explain which provisions it believes would undermine the objectives of Brexit.
The economic case for closer cooperation
Supporters of Starmer’s approach argue that the relationship with the EU should be judged by practical results rather than political symbolism.
The European Union remains a major trading partner for the United Kingdom. Businesses that export goods to European markets must navigate customs procedures, product requirements and other rules associated with trading across different regulatory systems.
Some companies argue that reducing unnecessary friction could help them compete more effectively. Smaller businesses in particular may find administrative requirements difficult to manage because they have fewer resources than large multinational firms.
A closer working relationship could also support cooperation in research, energy, defence and other areas where Britain and European countries share interests.
Supporters say these benefits do not require Britain to rejoin the EU. Instead, they argue that the government should negotiate arrangements that provide economic advantages while retaining control over areas it considers essential to national sovereignty.
Critics respond that alignment can come with costs. If Britain agrees to follow rules over which it has limited influence, it may find that formal independence does not always translate into practical freedom to choose different policies.
The disagreement is therefore partly about how sovereignty should be understood. One side emphasises the legal ability to make independent decisions, while the other also considers the economic advantages that can result from agreeing common rules with trading partners.
Both questions are relevant when assessing a proposed agreement. The government needs to explain the expected benefits and obligations, while critics need to demonstrate how those obligations could affect future choices.
Could the dispute divide British politics again?
Brexit has repeatedly reshaped party politics, electoral alliances and leadership contests. The possibility of a renewed campaign against closer EU relations could reopen divisions that some politicians hoped had become less important after the UK’s departure.
For Reform UK and other politicians who emphasise national sovereignty, opposition to the reset offers an opportunity to argue that the consequences of Brexit remain unresolved.
They can present the issue as a test of whether Labour is respecting the referendum result or seeking to move Britain closer to European institutions without explicitly promising to rejoin.
Conservative politicians may also face pressure to clarify their own position. Some support pragmatic cooperation with the EU, while others argue that the UK should resist arrangements that could lead to greater regulatory dependence.
Labour, meanwhile, must balance its economic ambitions with public sensitivities surrounding Brexit. A policy that delivers practical benefits may still face political resistance if voters believe the government has not been transparent about its long-term objectives.
Yet it would be premature to assume that every voter who supported Leave will oppose closer cooperation. The referendum coalition was diverse, and views on trade, immigration, public services and European relations have continued to evolve.
Likewise, support for improving relations with the EU does not necessarily mean support for rejoining the bloc. Voters may distinguish between cooperation on specific issues and membership of a political and economic union.
The political impact of the fightback will depend partly on whether campaigners can turn broad concerns about sovereignty into a convincing argument about the details of government policy.
The question of democratic accountability
One of the strongest arguments raised by Brexit veterans concerns democratic consent.
They argue that the 2016 referendum established a clear instruction to leave the EU and that any major change in the relationship should be openly debated rather than introduced through a series of technical agreements.
This raises a legitimate question about transparency. When a government negotiates an international agreement, voters should be able to understand its main obligations, expected benefits and possible long-term consequences.
Parliamentary scrutiny also matters. Legislators need sufficient information to assess whether an agreement is consistent with existing law, whether it imposes new commitments and how it may affect future governments.
At the same time, the referendum did not settle every question about Britain’s future relationship with Europe. Leaving the EU required subsequent decisions about trade, security, data, transport and many other matters.
Governments have to manage those relationships as circumstances change. Negotiating with the EU is not, by itself, evidence that a government intends to reverse Brexit.
The crucial distinction is between routine international cooperation and an agreement that materially changes the UK’s obligations or transfers decision-making authority. That distinction should be assessed through the text of each proposal and the mechanisms used to approve it.
What would a successful fightback achieve?
Campaigners seeking to stop the EU reset face the challenge of defining what they want Britain’s relationship with Europe to look like instead.
Simply rejecting closer cooperation may appeal to voters who remain deeply committed to Brexit, but it does not answer every practical question facing the government.
Britain must still decide how to facilitate trade, combat cross-border crime, coordinate defence, manage energy links and work with neighbouring countries on shared problems.
A successful opposition campaign would need to explain which forms of cooperation should continue, which should be rejected and what alternatives would protect British interests.
It would also need to distinguish between confirmed government commitments and fears about what might happen in the future. Claims that a specific agreement would restore free movement, surrender sovereignty or lead inevitably to EU membership require evidence from the agreement itself.
For the government, the challenge is equally significant. Ministers must demonstrate that their plans provide measurable benefits and do not conceal major political commitments behind technical language.
Publishing clear explanations, allowing parliamentary scrutiny and setting out the limits of proposed agreements could help voters judge the policy on its merits.
Britain’s Brexit debate is far from over
The return of Brexit veterans to the political argument would underline how deeply the referendum continues to influence British public life.
For those opposed to Starmer’s reset, the issue is about defending the promises and principles that motivated the Leave campaign. They fear that closer integration could gradually weaken the independence Britain sought to regain.
For supporters of the government’s approach, rebuilding relations with Europe is a practical response to the realities of trade, security and geography. They argue that Britain can remain outside the EU while cooperating more effectively with its neighbours.
Neither the term “reset” nor the slogan “fightback” settles the argument. The real test is what the proposed agreements contain, what they require Britain to do and whether their benefits justify the commitments involved.
The debate is likely to remain politically sensitive because it touches on questions of national identity, democratic accountability and economic opportunity.
Ultimately, voters will need to examine the evidence rather than rely solely on campaign slogans. The future relationship between Britain and the European Union will be shaped not only by arguments about the past, but also by the practical choices the country makes in the years ahead.