Britain’s Rejoin Moment: Why “Not Yet” May Be the Wisest Answer

A clear majority of Britons now favour returning to the European Union, but the memory of 2016 is a strong reason to think carefully before going back to the ballot box.

Ten years after the vote that took Britain out of the European Union, the subject Westminster avoided for most of a decade is back in the open. Prime Minister Andy Burnham told this autumn’s Labour conference that Brexit had done more harm than good. He has said that all options for the UK’s relationship with Brussels are under review, and he has not ruled out full membership. The question is no longer whether rejoining can be discussed. It is when Britain might return, and by what route.

A shift in public mood

The pressure behind the debate comes from opinion polls. A YouGov survey in early October found that 52 percent of Britons would vote to rejoin in a referendum, compared with 27 percent who would vote to stay out. More than one in five people who voted Leave in 2016 now say they would vote to rejoin. A larger Messina Group survey carried out in September put support at 49 percent and opposition below 29 percent. It also suggested that Labour could win more votes by offering a referendum and campaigning to return.

Pressure inside the Labour movement is also growing. London Mayor Sadiq Khan has said the groundwork must begin now, because a pledge to rejoin cannot be announced just before an election. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has suggested Britain should aim to rejoin within the next decade. Former minister Jess Phillips wants the commitment in Labour’s next manifesto, though she would prefer a general election, rather than another referendum, to settle it.

Why haste could be costly

A lead of 52 to 27 looks decisive, but referendum campaigns can change the picture quickly. The think tank IPPR has described much of the new pro-European sentiment as soft: the support is real, but it has not been tested by a hard campaign. In 2016, Remain began with a comfortable lead and still lost. Single-issue referendums tend to reward simple, emotional messages and promises that cannot later be checked. Slogans about money returning to the health service and taking back control showed how effective that approach can be.

A second defeat would not just delay the issue. It could settle it for a generation. The safest way back, therefore, may be to wait until support is so broad and stable that the vote confirms a settled national view rather than tests a narrow majority.

The European Union has its own concerns. Any British application would require the unanimous approval of all 27 member states. Brussels is unlikely to welcome a country whose membership could become contested again at the next election. EU officials have indicated that they are open to talks, but that Britain must first decide what it wants. To European capitals, a narrow and bitter “yes” would look almost as uncertain as a “no”.

The referendum dilemma

The argument for patience has a weakness: the public clearly wants a say. In the same YouGov survey, 64 percent said a negotiated rejoin deal should be put to a referendum, while only 23 percent said the government should decide alone. Most people who would vote to rejoin also favoured a referendum. Any attempt to return through a manifesto commitment alone would be attacked as an act against the 2016 vote, the same accusation pro-Europeans once made against attempts to reinterpret Brexit.

That leaves the Burnham government with a careful sequence of choices. It can move closer to Europe step by step through trade, regulatory alignment, youth mobility and security cooperation. It can allow public opinion to settle. Only then would it put a clear question to voters. The risk is that waiting becomes a habit, because political momentum is difficult to sustain and opponents will continue to organise.

The opposing view

Resistance remains strong. The Conservatives and Reform UK both firmly oppose rejoining. Many Leave voters still regard the 2016 result as a democratic decision that should be respected. Critics also warn that new terms of membership could be less favourable than those Britain gave up, with possible pressure over the euro and Schengen and no return of the old budget rebate. Some economists accept that Brexit has imposed real costs, but argue that rejoining would bring years of new uncertainty. Others ask whether a closer partnership short of membership, similar to those of Norway or Switzerland, could provide many of the benefits with less political risk. The poor electoral record of the formal Rejoin movement, which has never come close to winning a parliamentary seat, also shows that sentiment in polls does not automatically become votes.

What it means

For Europe, the change in British opinion matters. A decade after Brexit was presented as the first step in the Union’s unravelling, the movement is running in the other direction, and Iceland has also taken steps back toward membership talks. For Britain, the central lesson is that winning an argument and winning a referendum are different. Pro-Europeans now have the numbers. Whether they also have the patience to wait until those numbers can survive a campaign may decide whether the next vote ends the Brexit story or repeats its painful beginning.