In 1961, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government applied for membership in what was then the European Economic Community. Two years later, French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed British entry on the grounds that he doubted London’s commitment to European integration — and, perhaps more importantly, because he felt that Britain was too closely tied to the U.S.
Britain tried again in 1967, this time under Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s Labour government, but de Gaulle once again vetoed Britain’s membership. It was only when de Gaulle had passed from the scene that Britain, once again led by the Tories under Prime Minister Edward Heath, finally joined the Community in 1973.
When Wilson returned to 10 Downing Street in 1975, Labour held a referendum on whether to remain in the community and conducted a major public relations campaign to vote “yes” to stay in. Two-thirds of British voters chose to do so.
Nearly 40 years later, however, David Cameron’s Conservative government held another referendum on whether to remain in what was by then European Union. This time, the Brexiteers — so-called because they supported British exit, or Brexit — led by Boris Johnson, prevailed by a vote of 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent. Cameron soon resigned. After lengthy negotiations, Britain, with Johnson now prime minister, left the EU in 2020.
Many economists have concluded that Brexit was a bad idea. Britain did show strong GDP growth as COVID waned — 8.6 percent in 2021 followed by 5.9 percent 2022 — but GDP has dropped sharply since and is now predicted to grow by less than 1 percent in 2025.
The British public also appears to be suffering from Brexit fatigue. A new poll by YouGov found that 53 percent of Britons would favor returning to the EU, and nearly two-thirds say they would support the U.K. having a closer relationship with the EU than it does now.
Beyond economics or remorseful public sentiment, Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer has slowly reversed London’s separation from Europe for two reasons: Vladimir Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine and uncertainly about President Donald Trump’s continued support for that country and his intentions regarding America’s future role in NATO.
Starmer appears to have a decent relationship with Trump, and the pair reached a verbal understanding regarding a reduction of trade barriers. Moreover, the Australian-British-U.S. submarine and high-tech agreement continues to move ahead, and U.S.-U.K. military relations have remained stable despite the change in American administrations. But relatively good relations with Washington have not been sufficient to overcome Starmer’s concern about both Britain’s future economic growth as well as the future of European stability — and, for that matter, European democracy.
On May 19, as YouGov was still polling the public, the Starmer government announced what it headlined as a “new agreement with the European Union to support British businesses, back British jobs, and put more money in people’s pockets.” Specifically, the deal helps Britain’s agricultural sector by, among other things, removing some routine checks on animal and plant products and a “sanitary and phytosanitary measures” agreement, both of which will make it easier for the U.K. to import and export food products.
The agreement also provides for linking the British and EU Emissions Trading Systems, which the government claims “will improve the UK’s energy security and avoid businesses being hit by the EU’s carbon tax due to come in next year — which would have sent £800 million directly to the EU’s budget.” All told, London expects these aspects of the agreement to add nearly £9 billion to the U.K. economy by 2040. In addition, the deal will protect British steel exports from “new EU rules and restrictive tariffs,” resulting in annual savings of £25 million for the steel sector.
No less important is a separate U.K.-EU defense agreement, the so-called Security and Defence Partnership, which the government says will pave the way for the British defense industrial base to participate in the EU’s proposed new £150 billion Security Action for Europe (SAFE) defense fund. This agreement marks a further step in a process of British defense cooperation with the continent in general and with France in particular, including Anglo-French efforts to lead a “coalition of the willing” to build a force to guarantee Ukraine’s security.
Starmer’s government has made it clear that these agreements involve “no return to the single market, no return to the customs union, and no return to freedom of movement.” Some observers speculate that ultimately Britain will indeed open its now-closed doors to the EU’s provisions for freedom of movement that resulted in thousands of Eastern Europeans in particular moving to the U.K. That is for the future, however, if it ever comes to pass.
For the moment, Starmer’s policy reflects Winston’s Churchill’s famous description of Britain’s relationship to the continent: “We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.”
Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
