The Brexit debate has moved on, and so has Britain
4 min read
If people feel the positive effects of our new EU relationship, then accusations of "Brexit betrayal" will have no purchase whatsoever.
After a decade of drift, the government has finally taken meaningful steps toward repairing our broken relationship with Europe. The economic case remains undeniable. But now, our geopolitical context — Russia’s aggression and Donald Trump’s return to the White House — is forcing our hand. And the public? They’re more supportive than you might expect.
The latest Good Growth Foundation report, The Third Rail of British Politics, shows the country is ready for closer cooperation with Europe. More than 70 per cent of Britons back working with the EU on trade and the economy; roughly the same support deeper cooperation on defence and security. Perhaps most strikingly, among Leave-voting Labour supporters and Labour voters now flirting with Reform, more than half believe that, if push comes to shove, Britain should side with the EU over the US.
But there is a catch. Beneath the surface, many of the anxieties that fuelled Brexit still linger. People remain deeply concerned about sovereignty, immigration control and political integration. Attacks warning of a “Brexit betrayal” or the UK “surrendering to Brussels” continue to carry real political weight, driving down support for EU cooperation by as much as 16 points in our testing.
The government has reason to be bullish against these attacks.
It has managed to crack the fundamental problem at the heart of the UK-EU relationship: that we like the single market but do not want freedom of movement. This deal allows the cherry picking of access to the single market while avoiding European Court of Justice (ECJ) oversight, one of the public’s key red lines. The adoption of an independent arbitration model for the SPS agreement, with a more limited role for the ECJ, means the UK will have greater say in disputes as well as the formation of EU legislation — and all of this with no return to freedom of movement. This means that when someone claims sovereignty has been traded away, the response is straightforward: the ECJ is not in charge here.
Now that the government has ripped off the plaster and opened the door to a closer relationship, the priority must be to show how this reset will tangibly improve people’s lives.
Consider the proposed alignment of carbon and electricity markets. This could generate up to £1.6bn in annual fiscal benefits, while improving energy security and cutting waste. But those benefits need to be felt at the kitchen table. Rather than disappear into the Treasury’s coffers, this money could be used to cut household bills — either by raising individual payments of the Warm Homes Discount of up to £412, or by reducing energy bills by up to £56 for every household.
The same principle applies to immigration. A well-designed UK-EU Youth Mobility Scheme could generate over £1bn per year and is already popular with the public. But to retain that support, it must be clearly distinct from the old model of freedom of movement. A capped scheme allowing young EU citizens to live and work in the UK for up to three years, while contributing through a healthcare and cost-of-living surcharge, would demonstrate that the government is listening to voters’ immigration concerns. This is particularly important at a time when public services are under immense strain.
Brexit regret may now be widespread, but that doesn’t mean people are no longer wary of the EU and its institutions. People want to move on, but they also want a fairer deal — one that restores economic security and global standing without undermining the principle of sovereignty. If the reset is seen as something done for the public, not to the public, then the political space for deeper cooperation will expand.
This deal will be the foundation on which future arrangements with the EU are made. A ‘Swiss-cheese’ style relationship, with more mini-deals to come. But that means that the future will be littered with familiar political arguments. To head it off, a continued focus on the priorities and concerns of the public is needed for this détente to last.
Praful Nargund is Director of the Good Growth Foundation.
