top of page
Search

The Brexit "Reset" Is a Betrayal of the Referendum!


The United Kingdom is once again negotiating what is being described as a Brexit “reset” with the European Union. The language is carefully chosen: pragmatic, sensible, technical. Ministers insist this is not a reversal of Brexit, merely a refinement of the post-EU relationship. But strip away the euphemisms and the reality becomes clear. A Brexit reset is not a neutral adjustment. It is a political retreat that undermines the referendum result and represents a betrayal of the promises made to voters in 2016.


Brexit Was About Sovereignty, Not Convenience


The central argument for Brexit was sovereignty. Voters were told correctlythat EU membership constrained the UK’s ability to make its own laws, control its borders, and negotiate its own trade policy. Leaving the EU meant accepting responsibility for decisions that had previously been shared or delegated. It was never promised that this would be easy or frictionless; it was promised that it would be democratic.


A “reset” that quietly aligns the UK back with EU rules, standards, and legal oversight without representation or veto power violates that principle. Regulatory alignment without a vote is not sovereignty; it is rule-taking. If Britain ends up following EU law to access markets, while surrendering the ability to shape those laws, it will be in a worse position than before Brexit.


Re-Entry by Stealth


The current negotiations resemble a form of re-entry by stealth. Step by step, the UK is being drawn back into EU systems—on trade, migration, energy, and defence—without the democratic consent that full membership would require. Ministers may insist that these are limited, sector-specific agreements, but cumulatively they amount to a partial reintegration into the EU’s legal and political orbit.


This approach avoids an honest national conversation. If the government believes Brexit was a mistake and that closer integration with the EU is desirable, it should say so openly and seek a new mandate. Instead, it is attempting to hollow out

 
 
 

Comments


bottom of page