An anti-Brexit protester demonstrates outside the British Parliament in London. (Reuters) All things considered, the country could seek to achieve an intermediate status that would guarantee it unhindered access to the Single Market, similar to that enjoyed by Switzerland. The Alpine country has struck a deal granting it access to the European electricity market, the Erasmus programme, and space and research programmes for digitalisation. In return, Switzerland has agreed to the free movement of people and to pay 375 million euros a year into the EU’s Cohesion Fund.
In return, Switzerland agreed to the free movement of people through the Schengen agreement and to contribute 375 million euros annually to EU Cohesion Funds. The UK could also apply to join the European Economic Area (EEA), a possibility previously rejected by Starmer. This process would require negotiations and the country would have to accept freedom of movement.
According to British newspaper The Times, Brussels has already set a price for the country’s access to the Single Market: 1.15 billion euros annually, according to a diplomatic source who participated in the negotiations held on the sidelines of the European Political Community meeting in Armenia.
A return to the bloc would require difficult technical negotiations and concessions on the part of the United Kingdom
Another option, perhaps the most advantageous for the country economically and politically, would be to follow the path set by the current British Prime Minister, which consists of aligning with European policies.
The relationship between the UK and the EU has always been complex. The country joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973 under a Conservative government. While other nations opted for political integration, the British government consistently maintained a highly sovereign stance.
The UK never adopted the euro, remained outside the Schengen free movement and negotiated numerous exceptions. In fact, during its almost 50-year stay in the EU, the country was known to “cherry-pick” the aspects of EU law that suited it.
Eurosceptic rhetoric
In the 1980s and subsequent decades, Eurosceptic rhetoric gained traction, fuelled by fears of losing sovereignty and opposition to intra-European immigration. A largely Eurosceptic press and changing views of leading political parties didn't help the EU's cause. It was Conservative leader Edward Heath who took the UK into the then EEC in 1973, while in 1975 a Labour government held a referendum on the UK’s membership of the by then EC, when 67.2 per cent of Brits voted to remain. However, by the time Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 after 18 years of Conservative rule, the Labour Party was seen as largely pro-European, with the erstwhile more pro-EU Conservatives split over the issue.
After the Brexit referendum and years of failed withdrawal agreements it was Boris Johnson who managed to finalise the UK’s departure from the EU with a hard Brexit and political rupture, which ensured tariff-free trade on many goods and limited cooperation.
However, it also led to increased bureaucracy and customs controls, resulting in a decline in trade in some sectors.Tensions with Brussels stabilised during the tenure of Conservative PM Rishi Sunak and at the EU-UK summit, by then under Starmer’s leadership, in May 2025, the relationship was much closer.
Maintaining a good relationship is in the interest of both powers, both economically and geopolitically, at a time marked by the erratic decisions of Donald Trump and by economic competition with giants like the US and China.
Credits
Jennie Rhodes contributed to this article. The war in Ukraine, the Trump effect and the agreement with Canada
The Russian invasion of Ukraine upended the Western geopolitical map and the return of war to Europe’s doorstep has drawn countries like the UK and Canada closer to the EU. This trend has been reinforced by Donald Trump’s return to the White House and his use of an aggressive and unilateral foreign policy.
Lately, the British government has aligned itself with Europe on issues such as the tightening of immigration policy and has sought greater economic cooperation. Internationally, the Franco-British axis has strengthened. Starmer, along with French President Emmanuel Macron, has convened several summits to coordinate defence policies and the continent’s rearmament in the face of the Russian threat and to organise the possible deployment of a European security force to Ukraine, among other issues.
Canada has followed the same path, increasingly aligning itself with the EU. Like its European allies, Canada has been attacked by Trump for not spending enough on defence within NATO and faced with the rivalry and polarisation of giants like the US and China, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has urged “middle powers” to form an alliance to avoid becoming targets for the superpowers. The EU also sees Canada as a reliable partner in defending multilateralism and international law.
The UK, which since leaving the EU had opted for autonomy and national sovereignty, had to change course after the war in Ukraine revealed the limitations of that strategy. The country has coordinated with the EU on support for Kyiv, energy measures and sanctions against Russia.
The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has repeatedly stated that the EU is a “reliable partner” amidst a turbulent international landscape and increasingly countries see the bloc as a guarantor of stability, a key alliance on economic issues and in the defence of democracy, in the face of autocracies like China and Russia.
This phenomenon is not limited to the UK and Canada. Sweden and Finland have joined NATO after years of nonalignment with the military organisation. Australia, Norway, and Japan have also moved closer to Europe in strategic areas.
Paradoxically, nationalist movements like Brexit and Trump’s “America First” policy have ended up having the opposite effect, fostering closer cooperation among allies. Paradoxically, nationalist movements such as Brexit and Trump’s ‘America First’ policy have ended up having the opposite effect and boosting close cooperation between allies.
