![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/gettyimages-2168988000-1038x778.jpg\")
\n Photo by Sean Gallup\/Getty Images<\/p>\n
\n Photo by Sean Gallup\/Getty Images<\/p>\n
Brexit has been disastrous for the UK, and Keir Starmer is right to seek a rapprochement with the EU. A decade on, Brexit\u2019s long-term negative impact on the UK economy has become clear. Studies<\/a> estimate that GDP per capita is 6-8 per cent lower and investment is 12-18 per cent lower than if the UK had remained in the EU. The resulting structural constraints, including reduced productivity, trade inefficiencies, and labour shortages have stunted the UK economy by roughly \u00a3140bn<\/a>. Real wages have barely risen, investment has been weak and productivity growth has disappointed. And now, in addition to the ongoing grind of the country\u2019s cost-of-living<\/a> mire is the new economic crisis unfolding due to the war in Iran<\/a>.<\/p>\n The UK\u2019s best interests are served by a closer relationship with the EU, in both economic and security domains. The US under Donald Trump<\/a> has become an unstable and unpredictable partner, having launched a trade war<\/a> last year and attempted to involve the UK in unnecessary conflicts. Trump\u2019s conflict with Iran and the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz has significantly increased<\/a> costs on our farms. The price of fuel used for tractors and other farm vehicles and machinery has almost doubled, rising from 69p per litre to \u00a31.20<\/a>.<\/p>\n The UK government is set to introduce legislation<\/a> aimed at easing trade with the EU on May 13, in the King\u2019s Speech. This legislation primarily focuses on areas such as food standards, carbon pricing for industry, and electricity trading. Starmer and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves have made it clear that this proposal does not mean the UK will rejoin the EU single market or customs union. Instead, the legislation<\/a> seeks to align British laws with European law in areas where agreements have already been established, allowing goods to move across the EU-UK border with less friction. It will facilitate trade and stimulate economic growth by aligning regulatory regimes and eliminating unnecessary red tape introduced by Boris Johnson\u2019s EU Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020<\/a>.<\/p>\n Basing the bill on \u201cdynamic alignment\u201d with Europe suggests the government intends to use secondary legislation under so-called \u201cHenry VIII<\/a>\u201d powers \u2013 a 1539 law that enabled the monarch to rule by decree. In practice, ministers can implement, adjust, or expand rules without going through the full parliamentary process again after the main bill has been adopted by parliament. This proposal has predictably drawn criticism from the Reform and Conservative parties, who have labelled<\/a> it \u201ctreason\u201d and a \u201cbetrayal<\/a>\u201d to UK sovereignty and the will of those who voted for Brexit.<\/p>\n Subscribe to the New Statesman today and save 75% <\/p>\n In truth, the Henry VIII<\/a> powers are well founded under the British constitution; histrionic claims of treason by pro-Brexit politicians are somewhat undercut by the vast use of such powers in the EU Withdrawal Act<\/a>, in order to fill the gaping holes in the domestic statute book caused by Brexit\u2019s instant evaporation of EU law. It\u2019s hard to imagine any powers contained in the proposed new bill being anywhere near as extensive as those of Johnson\u2019s EU Withdrawal Act.<\/p>\n Andrew Griffith, the Tory Shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, argued that the proposal for dynamic alignment involves the Labour government \u201cstill fighting the referendum because they fundamentally cannot accept the democratic decision the British people made\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n This claim is questionable for several reasons. Firstly, throughout the Brexit referendum campaign, it was unclear what kind of relationship<\/a> those in favour of leaving envisaged between the EU single market and the customs union. Given this ambiguity, and considering that the current proposal does not come close to rejoining either the EU single market or the customs union, it is difficult to argue that it reverses the democratic decision made in the referendum. In fact, it is this fundamental ambiguity that has rendered the post-Brexit<\/a> period so politically contentious, as the referendum broadly amounted to a blank canvas regarding the future relationship between the UK and the EU.<\/p>\n It is disheartening, a decade after the referendum, to witness politicians attempting to shroud their own policy preferences in the guise of the \u201cwill of the people\u201d. To be candid, \u201cwill\u201d never existed at the level of detail necessary for addressing the realities of contemporary economic and political life. We must now engage in an honest and forthright discussion about the true impact of Brexit<\/a>, acknowledging its significant consequences that have rendered the UK poorer and more isolated. In a world characterised by considerable conflict and uncertainty, Starmer<\/a> is right to advocate for closer alignment with the EU for our economic health and future security.<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/dl6pgk4f88hky.cloudfront.net\/2021\/09\/TNS_master_logo.svg\"){kind=logo}
<\/a><\/p>\n