David Martin, Senior Advisor Shearwater Global, Vice-President European Parliament 1989-2004, MEP 1984-2019 (UK’s longest serving) and President of European Movement Scotland, writes for the EU Political Report.
A decade after the Brexit referendum, the UK’s relationship with the European Union has exploded into life thanks to the anticipated Labour leadership contest. There is now a widespread view that while the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) provides a minimal framework, it does not address the deeper economic and geopolitical pressures reshaping Europe or the challenges facing the U.K. Recent tensions inside Labour — sharpened by Wes Streeting’s explicit pro-Rejoin stance and Andy Burnham’s constituency-driven caution — have reopened a debate the leadership hoped to defer. This article outlines four strategic scenarios for the UK’s European future and situates them within Labour’s emerging internal divide.
1. Incremental Engagement: Starmer’s Holding Pattern
Keir Starmer’s approach is the dominant paradigm: do nothing that looks like reversing
Brexit, but quietly improve the TCA where possible. It is a strategy built on caution, party
management, and a belief that competence can substitute for structural change.
What this scenario looks like
– Limited SPS and veterinary alignment
– Youth mobility schemes
– Energy and climate cooperation
– Security dialogues
It is a politics of repair without redesign — stabilising the relationship while avoiding
anything that could be framed as “rejoining by stealth.”
Why it dominates Labour:
Starmer sees Brexit as a settled issue for this Parliament. EU leaders, for their part, appear to
have “no appetite” to reopen membership discussions while UK politics remains divided.
Incrementalism, therefore, becomes the path of least resistance.
The problem:
Incrementalism does not fix the structural economic damage.
Independent analysts estimate:
– Customs Union membership would recover around 0.5–1% of lost GDP.
– Single Market participation would recover 4–6%
– Full EU membership would recover 5–7%
Incremental tweaks barely register against these figures.
2. Deeper Economic Integration: Streeting’s Challenge to the Leadership
Wes Streeting has detonated the quiet consensus by openly supporting rejoining the EU — a
move designed to appeal to Labour members and to differentiate himself in a future
leadership contest. This is not a fringe position. It is a direct challenge to Starmer’s caution.
What this scenario looks like
– Customs Union membership (frictionless trade in goods)
– Single Market participation (four freedoms, regulatory alignment)
– A structured place in a “concentric circles” Europe
Why Streeting’s intervention matters:
Streeting is doing what no senior Labour figure has dared:
-acknowledging the economic costs of Brexit,
-arguing that rule-taking may be preferable to rule-breaking,
-and positioning himself as the candidate of honesty about Europe.
This is a political calculation. Labour members overwhelmingly support rejoining, and Streeting is speaking directly to them.
The economic case:
The difference between the Customs Union and the Single Market is not marginal — it is
transformative.
-Customs Union helps goods exporters, but does little for services.
-Single Market: restores access for services, mobility, and investment.
-Full membership: restores influence over the rules.
The UK is a services-heavy economy. That is why the Single Market delivers far larger gains
than the Customs Union alone.
3. Rejoining the EU: The Long-Term Horizon That Won’t Go Away
Rejoining is not Labour policy. It is not EU policy. And yet it is the gravitational centre of the debate.
Public opinion is shifting. Younger voters overwhelmingly support rejoining. Labour members support it by large margins. But EU leaders are clear: they will not reopen the question while UK politics remains unstable.
What this scenario entails
-Full accession under Article 49
-Acceptance of the acquis
-No return of previous opt-outs (rebate, euro, Schengen exemptions)
Why it remains relevant.
Even if politically distant, rejoining is the only scenario that fully restores economic integration and institutional influence. It is the logical endpoint of the argument Streeting has begun to make — and the scenario Starmer is determined to avoid discussing.
4. The Burnham Constraint: A Leadership Contender Forced into Silence
Andy Burnham is now boxed in by the electoral geography of Makerfield, a constituency that voted 65% Leave and remains Eurosceptic.
This has profound implications for Labour’s internal debate.
What this scenario looks like
-Burnham cannot articulate a pro-European position.
-He cannot match Streeting’s honesty about the economic costs of Brexit.
-He cannot contradict Starmer without alienating Leave-leaning voters.
Burnham is therefore the most constrained of the three major figures.
Why this matters
Burnham’s silence is not ideological — it is structural.
He is fighting a byelection where Reform UK is the main challenger. Any hint of proEU
sentiment risks being weaponised.
This creates a paradox:
-Streeting is free to speak to the Labour membership.
-Starmer is free to speak to the national electorate.
-Burnham is trapped speaking to Makerfield.
The broader implication
Labour’s European strategy is now shaped by English electoral pressures, not by long-term
economic logic. Burnham’s constraint exposes the fragility of Labour’s attempt to hold
together a coalition of pro-EU members and Brexit-leaning voters.
Conclusion: Labour’s European Argument Has Reopened — Whether Starmer Likes It or Not
The UK’s European future is not a binary choice but a spectrum of strategic possibilities. The
internal Labour debate now maps onto four competing instincts:
-Starmer: stabilise, avoid risk, keep Brexit off the table.
-Streeting: confront the economic reality, speak to the membership.
-Burnham: survive Makerfield, avoid being trapped between the two.
-Rejoiners: articulate the long-term horizon that the leadership refuses to discuss.
The real story is this:
Labour’s European debate is no longer dormant. It has been reopened from below —
by members, by economic reality, and now by Streeting’s intervention.
Starmer can delay the argument.
Burnham can avoid it for now.
But the strategic question remains unavoidable:
What kind of European future does the UK want — and who in Labour is willing to say it out loud?
