Yesterday, Keir Starmer announced that Britain would seek a ‘closer partnership’ with the European Union, citing the volatility caused by the Iran war and the need for greater European cooperation on defence, security and the economy. A summit with EU leaders is planned for the coming weeks, where Britain will pursue what Starmer called ‘more ambitious’ goals of ‘closer economic cooperation’ and ‘closer security cooperation’.
The language is carefully chosen. ‘Closer partnership.’ ‘More ambitious.’ ‘Undo the deep damage.’ This isn’t the vocabulary of a government that respects the democratic decision to leave the European Union. This is the vocabulary of a government that sees every global crisis as an opportunity to reverse it.
Using Crisis as Cover
The timing is no accident. With tensions between London and Washington escalating over Trump’s repeated criticisms of Starmer’s handling of the Iran situation, the Prime Minister is using the deterioration in the US-UK relationship as justification for pivoting towards Brussels. The argument goes: if America won’t be a reliable partner, we need Europe more than ever.
It’s a conveniently self-serving narrative. The US-UK relationship is under strain because of Labour’s foreign policy choices, not because of any fundamental shift in geopolitical alignment. And the solution to diplomatic difficulties with one ally is not to rush into the arms of another — especially when that other is the European Union, whose regulatory embrace is exactly what 17.4 million people voted to escape.
Reform UK has always supported strong bilateral relationships with both the US and European nations. But there is a fundamental difference between sovereign cooperation between independent nations and the kind of institutional alignment that Starmer is pursuing. When the Prime Minister talks about ‘closer economic cooperation’ with the EU, he means regulatory alignment. When he says ‘closer security cooperation,’ he means defence integration. When he says ‘undo the deep damage,’ he means Brexit.
The Salami-Slice Strategy
This is how it works. You don’t announce that you’re reversing Brexit. You announce a series of small, reasonable-sounding steps that each bring Britain closer to EU alignment. A veterinary agreement here. A mutual recognition deal there. A defence cooperation framework. A youth mobility scheme. Each one, taken individually, seems pragmatic and sensible. Taken together, they amount to a systematic erosion of the independence that Brexit was supposed to deliver.
The EU understands this perfectly. Brussels has always been patient. They know that if Britain can be drawn back into regulatory alignment, market access frameworks, and institutional cooperation, the substance of Brexit can be reversed without ever holding a second referendum. Starmer is their willing partner in this project.
What voters should be asking is: if closer EU ties are so essential for security, why didn’t the government invest in domestic energy independence instead? If economic cooperation with Europe is so vital, why has the government imposed the highest tax burden in decades on British businesses? The answers reveal that this isn’t about pragmatic responses to global instability. It’s about an ideological commitment to European integration that Labour never abandoned.
What Britain Actually Needs
Britain doesn’t need closer institutional ties with the EU. It needs an independent trade policy that opens markets around the world. It needs domestic energy security so that Middle Eastern crises don’t dictate our economic fortunes. It needs a tax system that encourages business investment rather than driving it abroad. It needs immigration controls that actually control immigration.
“Every crisis is an excuse for Labour to drift back towards Brussels. The Iran war, the energy crisis, trade disruption — every problem apparently has the same solution: give up more sovereignty to the EU. At some point, voters need to ask whether this is crisis management or a predetermined agenda.”
The 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union did so because they wanted their country to be governed by people they could vote for and remove. They wanted trade deals that served British interests. They wanted borders they could control. Six years on, Labour is methodically dismantling each of those achievements under the cover of diplomatic necessity. The Iran war didn’t create this agenda — it just gave Starmer the excuse he was waiting for.