Britain wants back into the European Union, if the pollsters are to be believed. On the surface, they are not wrong. YouGov has Rejoin at 55 per cent and Stay Out at 33. BMG has Rejoin at 48 and Stay Out at 34. Support for rejoining has been consistently ahead since 2021 – effectively since Britain formally left the bloc.
That has, in turn, prompted some within Labour to begin treating the issue less as a distant hypothetical and more as a live political question. But they shouldn’t throw caution to the wind. Support for Rejoin appears less like an active political movement than an expression of dissatisfaction with Brexit’s outcomes. Most polling shows large majorities believing Brexit has gone badly. Yet that does not necessarily translate into enthusiasm for reopening the question.
Part of the explanation may be disengagement. Leave voters – and groups demographically similar to them – appear less engaged with constitutional questions than they were a decade ago. A gap in enthusiasm can produce polling advantages that do not necessarily map onto referendum conditions. There is also a broader political calculation at work. For some strategists, reopening the European debate under figures associated with Labour’s current leadership risks creating more political friction than benefit. At a time when the cost of living remains the dominant concern for voters, returning to Brexit could be interpreted less as renewal and more as refighting old arguments.
There may be a time to revisit the question of Rejoin. In a climate of economic pressure and political fatigue, many would argue this is not it. Which makes the fact the conversation is resurfacing now notable in itself.
Enter Wes Streeting.
In remarks made during what many interpreted as an early positioning exercise for a future leadership contest – though not formally presented as one – the former health secretary spoke of the need for “a new Special Relationship” with the EU and suggested Britain could one day find itself back inside.
Streeting has publicly confirmed he would contest a post-Keir Starmer Labour leadership, if and when the opportunity arises. His comments were followed by renewed attention on remarks made by Andy Burnham. Speaking at Labour conference last year, Burnham also spoke positively about the prospect of Britain one day returning to the European Union.
None of this is especially surprising. Labour’s senior figures are generally seen as more sympathetic to Rejoin than to Brexit. But the timing has raised eyebrows. The discussion has emerged against the backdrop of what could become one of Labour’s most politically significant parliamentary by-elections in recent years – in a seat with a strong Brexit identity and one that later swung heavily towards Reform.
That has created an opening for opponents. Reform’s argument is straightforward: Labour figures are signalling a return to old political priorities. The framing is familiar – another attempt, in their telling, to reopen a settled debate. Whether that argument cuts through is less clear.
One question is whether Leave-oriented voters are sufficiently motivated by Europe anymore to make it electorally decisive. If criticism comes from Reform rather than Labour figures themselves, it may carry more credibility with that audience. But for that to matter, Europe would likely need to become central to perceptions of the candidate involved. At the same time, constituencies like Makerfield may not be as firmly pro-Leave as they once were.
Polling from More in Common suggests support for Rejoin could now be competitive. But that shift may reflect lower engagement among former Leave voters rather than an active conversion towards rejoining. That distinction matters. A constituency can become more sceptical of Brexit’s outcomes without becoming enthusiastic about reversing it.
Voters may believe Brexit has not delivered while remaining resistant to being told so by political figures they do not identify with. That creates a challenge for both sides of the argument. Talk too much about Rejoin and the issue risks becoming politically stale again. Focus too heavily on attacking others for discussing it and the effect may be similar.
At present, Europe appears to sit below more immediate concerns. Reform’s strongest campaigning issues remain immigration and the cost of living. Those are the issues on which attention and political energy continue to concentrate. Add Europe back into the mix and there is a risk some voters simply disengage.
Unless, of course, voters come to see the candidate themselves as representative of a broader argument they no longer want reopened. There is a recent political comparison here. Critics have sought to attack Nigel Farage, the man famed for railing against the establishment, whatever that is. Because, the left-adjacent journalists and activists smirk, don’t you realise? He’s privately educated. He worked in the city. He’s been in politics all as life! He’s had how many cushy salaries now? He’s as establishment as you get!
And yet, after years of that, it has failed to fly. Why? Not that it’s false. But because it doesn’t matter to the voters who might back him. Because 1) the wrong people are saying it; and 2) it’s not the issue that matters for them when deciding how to vote.
And it is through this lens that I think we ought to consider Andy Burnham. Successful attacks on him need to be familiar and believable and delivered by the people voters might listen to. Reform would get a fairer hearing in Makerfield than most. But campaigning on an issue that motivates very few current voters – and against a man who is already a household name – might just alienate supporters.
Reform will throw everything at this by-election. It may come down to the wire. And it will criticise Burnham over the EU. But will that particular attack line motivate more than a few hundred? I don’t think so.
[Further reading: Where does Nigel Farage get his money?]
Content from our partners
Related
