The Prime Minister wants to overturn Brexit says Giles Sheldrick (Image: Getty)
There is only one beneficiary from Sir Keir Starmer’s torturous stay in Number 10. It didn’t take long for Nigel Farage’s new year dreams to come true with the increasingly out-of-touch prime minister hitching up his trouser leg and flashing a little ankle at Europe.
After variously dodging, ducking, swerving, avoiding, and deliberately steering clear of the issue, Sir Keir presented a gift-wrapped present to the Reform leader (and likely successor) by confirming what we all knew but he had hitherto failed to muster the guts to say: Labour is determined to deceitfully nudge Britain ever closer to the single market.
Sir Keir campaigned for a second referendum and his pompous deputy David Lammy has always thought Britain would be better off in the single market.
Labour is so bereft of ideas – and support – it doesn’t have a plan that isn’t ever-closer alignment with Brussels. Unlike the 17.4 million who voted to leave it has never felt comfortable being outside the European Union.
So it should be no surprise that Sir Keir is now embarking on a great Brexit sell-out, slowly strengthening Britain’s relationship with the bloc that will eventually lead to a reworked single market where the UK is part a unified economic area in which goods, services, capital, and people can move freely across borders.
A greater act of political treachery it is hard to imagine.
Nigel Farage is now odds-on to become the next prime minister (Image: Getty)
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.
In one fell swoop our prime minister has effectively dismissed the democratic desires of those who voted to leave the EU.
And as if to rub salt into their wounds he has the gall to say that his vision of a reset relationship would not see a return to freedom of movement.
When asked about “even closer alignment”, Slippery Sir Keir said: “If it’s in our national interest…then we should consider that, we should go that far.”
His thinking is that a tough stance on Brexit will head off the threat of Mr Farage and Reform at the pass in a policy framed as an attempt to undo some of the economic damage caused by the seismic 2016 ballot.
Sir Keir, a fixture of the haughty metropolitan elite that loathed the peasants’ revolt which saw us extricate ourselves from the bloc, has long accused Mr Farage of “peddling falsehoods” about the benefits of Brexit.
But this policy of realignment is surely the most misguided and ill-judged offering from someone with a rich and varied back catalogue in miscalculations.
Sir Keir’s approval ratings are languishing somewhere south of -51, Labour is set to be annihilated at the local elections in May (in areas where they haven’t been postponed), and the chances are he will be ousted as prime minister long before then.
The only winner from his extraordinary obsession to hop back into bed with his brethren in Brussels will be Mr Farage and his seemingly unstoppable Reform people’s army.
Britain unequivocally voted to unshackle itself from the EU straitjacket, yet this feeble flip-flopping prime minister has never accepted the result of a democratic vote because, well, he knows best.
Rest assured this will be his biggest mistake and serve only to hasten his exit and Mr Farage’s entry to Downing Street.
Panicked Sir Keir’s attempts to attack the Reform UK leader have already sensationally backfired.
A previous hit job led to a surge in support and a forecast that Mr Farage would win around 370 seats at a general election.
Attempting to reverse Brexit is the clearest sign yet that Labour is running out of ideas and it is fast running out of road.
Brexit Hater Keir Starmer Just Made His Biggest Mistake Yet – This One Will Finish Him
Keir Starmer’s approach to Brexit has once again placed him at the centre of a political storm, as the government’s efforts to deepen economic cooperation with the European Union face criticism from opponents who argue that Labour is gradually moving Britain back towards the structures it left behind.
The language surrounding the controversy has become increasingly dramatic. Critics have described Starmer’s approach as a betrayal of Brexit, while supporters of closer European cooperation argue that Britain needs a more practical relationship with its largest neighbouring market.
The underlying issue is more complicated than either description suggests.
Starmer’s government has maintained that Britain will not rejoin the European Union, the single market or the customs union, and that freedom of movement will not return. At the same time, the government has pursued closer cooperation with Brussels in areas including food and agriculture, energy, emissions trading and youth mobility.
That tension has created fertile ground for a new political confrontation.
The move that triggered the controversy
One of the most significant developments came in May, when reports emerged that British officials had suggested establishing a single market for goods with the European Union.
Reuters reported that the proposal represented an ambitious attempt to reset Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the bloc. However, the EU subsequently rejected the idea as presented by Britain.
The BBC separately reported that officials had discussed the concept but that it had not been taken forward after EU scepticism. The report noted that the proposal nevertheless demonstrated a greater level of ambition in London’s efforts to deepen economic relations with Europe.
For Brexit supporters, this was precisely the sort of development they had warned about.
A goods-only single market would potentially reduce barriers to trade while attempting to avoid some of the broader obligations associated with EU membership.
But the EU has consistently argued that its single market operates on the basis of interconnected principles.
That means Britain’s desire to obtain greater access without accepting all the associated obligations has encountered resistance.
The EU’s four freedoms
The fundamental difficulty is the structure of the European single market.
The EU’s position is that the free movement of goods, services, capital and people are interconnected.
European ministers have therefore rejected the idea that Britain could simply select one part of the system while excluding the others. The Guardian reported that several European governments had made clear that the UK would not receive special treatment or be allowed to “cherry-pick” individual elements of the single market.
That creates a major political dilemma for any British government.
Closer access to European markets could reduce trade barriers and make life easier for British companies.
But greater alignment with EU rules could also mean accepting constraints that Brexit supporters specifically wanted Britain to escape.
The argument is therefore not simply about Europe.
It is about the balance between economic integration and regulatory independence.
Starmer’s position is more nuanced than his critics suggest
Despite the intensity of the criticism, Starmer has not announced that Britain is rejoining the EU.
His government has maintained its formal Brexit red lines.
The Independent reported in June that Starmer’s government continued to rule out membership of the EU, customs union and single market, as well as a return to freedom of movement.
At the same time, Starmer has repeatedly argued that Britain should seek a closer relationship with Europe.
This distinction is crucial.
There is a substantial difference between rejoining the single market and negotiating agreements that reduce barriers in particular sectors.
Britain has already pursued closer cooperation in areas where both sides see potential economic or strategic benefits.
The government has also argued that such arrangements can preserve British sovereignty because the UK remains outside the EU’s political institutions.
Critics dispute that interpretation, particularly where British businesses may have to follow European standards in order to retain market access.
Why Reform sees an opportunity
For Reform UK, the controversy provides an opportunity to argue that Brexit is being weakened without a formal referendum.
Nigel Farage has consistently made national sovereignty a central part of his political message.
From that perspective, the government’s approach raises a straightforward question: what was the point of leaving the EU if Britain eventually chooses to align itself increasingly closely with European rules?
That question has considerable political force.
But there is another side to it.
Britain is geographically close to Europe and remains deeply integrated with European supply chains.
Businesses that trade with the continent can face additional paperwork and regulatory requirements because the UK is outside the single market.
The government therefore argues that reducing those barriers can have practical economic value.
The political disagreement is consequently about which costs and benefits should receive greater weight.
The economic argument
The debate is particularly important because Britain remains heavily dependent on trade with Europe.
The Centre for European Reform has argued that Brexit has substantially reduced Britain’s trade with the EU and estimated that leaving the customs union and single market has had a significant effect on economic output.
Other analysts dispute aspects of the economic modelling or emphasise benefits associated with regulatory independence and Britain’s ability to establish its own trade policy.
There is therefore no single statistic capable of resolving the entire political argument.
For the government, closer European cooperation can be presented as an attempt to address practical trading problems.
For Brexit supporters, the same policies can be interpreted as evidence that the original decision to leave has produced political and economic complications that were underestimated.
The financial question
Another source of tension is money.
Closer participation in European programmes can require financial contributions.
The issue became particularly visible during negotiations over Britain’s possible participation in European initiatives.
The Guardian reported that London had faced financial questions over participation in areas such as the EU electricity market and defence procurement.
That creates another political vulnerability for Labour.
Brexit supporters can ask why Britain should contribute financially to European structures after leaving them.
The government’s response is that contributions should be judged according to the benefits Britain receives.
That is essentially the same argument used in many international agreements: participation can carry costs, but governments may consider those costs worthwhile if the economic or strategic returns are greater.
Could this really “finish” Starmer?
The phrase “this one will finish him” belongs to the language of political campaigning and commentary rather than an established fact.
The available evidence does not demonstrate that one Brexit policy decision would determine Starmer’s political future.
Indeed, the political situation surrounding Starmer has already changed dramatically during 2026.
Rather than remaining prime minister indefinitely, Starmer left office earlier this year and Andy Burnham became prime minister. Current reporting therefore places Starmer’s Brexit record in the context of his period as former prime minister rather than presenting him as the current head of government.
That makes the headline’s framing particularly important to qualify.
The Brexit debate can certainly affect political reputations and party strategy, but it should not be treated as proof of a particular political outcome.
The broader Labour dilemma
The underlying problem for Labour is likely to outlast any individual politician.
The party has voters with very different views of Brexit.
Some Labour supporters favour much closer relations with Europe. Others supported leaving the EU and do not want Britain to move towards reintegration.
A policy that appeals to one group can therefore create problems with another.
The government has attempted to navigate this by presenting its European policy as pragmatic rather than ideological.
It argues that closer cooperation is about economic growth, trade and practical benefits rather than reversing the referendum.
Opponents argue that the distinction may become increasingly difficult to maintain if Britain adopts more EU rules over time.
A new phase of the Brexit argument
Ten years after the referendum, Britain’s European debate has changed.
The central question is no longer simply whether Britain should leave.
Britain has already left.
The question now is what kind of relationship it should have with the European Union.
Should Britain maintain maximum regulatory independence even if that creates additional barriers to trade?
Should it align with European rules in selected areas?
Should it seek a broader economic relationship?
Or should it eventually consider much deeper integration?
Different political parties have different answers.
Reform has generally argued for preserving the independence created by Brexit.
Labour has pursued closer practical cooperation while maintaining formal red lines against rejoining the single market or customs union.
Other politicians have gone further. Recent debate has included calls for Britain eventually to reconsider membership of the EU itself, although that remains a separate proposition from the government’s current policy.
The political battle ahead
The controversy surrounding Starmer’s European policy therefore represents a larger argument about Britain’s future.
For Brexit supporters, every new agreement with Brussels raises questions about whether the country is gradually returning to arrangements it deliberately abandoned.
For supporters of closer cooperation, the same agreements represent an attempt to solve practical economic problems created by the UK’s separation from its largest trading partner.
Neither interpretation automatically establishes what Britain’s future relationship with Europe should be.
The important questions are concrete.
How much market access would Britain obtain?
What rules would British businesses have to follow?
Would Britain have a say in those rules?
What financial contribution would be required?
Would immigration arrangements change?
And what economic benefits would result?
Those questions are more significant than the dramatic language of political headlines.
Starmer’s European strategy has certainly become one of the most contested aspects of the post-Brexit political landscape. The proposal for a closer goods relationship demonstrated how far the debate had moved from the immediate aftermath of the referendum, while the EU’s response showed that Brussels remains unwilling to separate market access entirely from the rules underpinning the single market.
The result is a political argument that is unlikely to disappear.
Brexit has become less about the original vote and more about the practical choices Britain makes after leaving.
Whether those choices eventually lead to greater alignment, continued distance or something between the two will depend on future governments, negotiations with Brussels and, ultimately, decisions made by voters.
For now, the most significant fact is that Britain’s relationship with Europe remains unsettled—and the debate over how far the UK should move towards its former partners continues to shape British politics.