If Trump hoped to tilt British politics towards more populist figures like Nigel Farage, he may instead be pushing it in the opposite direction.

Donald Trump cheered Brexit as a triumph of nationalism and sovereignty. A decade on, his presidency may be doing more than anything else to expose its limits, and push Britain back towards the European Union.

In May 2016, the then-presidential hopeful declared the UK would be “better off without” the EU, blaming it for driving a migration crisis that had been a “horrible thing for Europe.” He was one of the few major international figures to openly back Leave. When the result came, he revelled in it, hailing a “great victory” that would allow Britain to “take back control,” while bragging that “crooked Hillary Clinton got Brexit wrong.”

Ten years later, that ‘victory’ is on the ropes. And the irony is hard to miss: the very political force that celebrated Brexit may now be helping to undo it.

A ‘special relationship’ in tatters

Trump’s return to power has cast fresh doubt over Britain’s much-vaunted “special relationship” with the United States. The concept that was originally voiced by Winston Churchill eighty years ago and always a little problematic, now looks increasingly threadbare.  

When denied his own way, Trump has lashed out at allies, and Britain has not been spared. His frustration at the UK’s refusal to fall fully into line with US foreign policy, most notably its decision not to directly support the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, is only the latest in a series of public rebukes directed at Keir Starmer’s government. These are not isolated outbursts, but part of a broader pattern that calls into question the durability of transatlantic goodwill.

Besides insulting the British armed forces, earlier this year, Trump dismissed the UK’s deal to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius while leasing back a key military base as an “act of great stupidity.” He has threatened tariffs on European allies and has taken aim at London mayor Sadiq Khan, calling him a “nasty person” who had done a “terrible job.”

The ‘jewel in the Brexit crown’ that never shone

This US hostility towards Britain matters in the Brexit debate. Leaving the EU rested on an implicit pivot towards the United States as Britain’s principal economic and strategic partner. Yet under successive governments, efforts to formalise this relationship fell short.

The June 2023 Atlantic Declaration, agreed by Rishi Sunak and Joe Biden, was a watered down and limited framework, far removed from the full-fledged free trade deal promised before and after the 2016 referendum.

And with Trump back in office and peeved by Britain’s refusal to fall obediently into line, the prospect of a close economic partnership, the central prize of that Atlantic pivot, appears more elusive than ever.

Trump’s erratic and hostile approach to alliances has laid bare the fragility of the assumptions underpinning Brexit. As Financial Times chief economics commentator Martin Wolf has argued, the US now looks less like a stable anchor of global leadership and more like “an unpredictable wrecking ball.” In that context, the logic of Brexit, loosening ties with Europe while leaning into the US, begins to fall apart.

There is an irony closer to home, too. British voters remain deeply hostile to Trump, whose net favourability recently stood at minus 65. Polling for Politico this week shows how much the British public is losing patience with Trump, with two-thirds saying the US creates problems around the world and fewer than a quarter believing it helps solve them.

Public opinion is also firmly against the US-Israeli assault on Iran, with 59 percent against and just 25 in support. Trump’s attacks may be intended to undermine Starmer, but they may do the opposite – strengthen the prime minister rather than weaken him. Were Starmer to take a firmer line, and suspend support for the US military, as figures on the left such as Zack Polanski and Caroline Lucas are urging, he may even win over some on the left, where he remains deeply unpopular.

If Trump hoped to tilt British politics towards more populist figures like Nigel Farage, he may instead be pushing it in the opposite direction.

The reset

All of this is sharpening the case for a UK-EU reset. What once looked like a cautious effort to smooth over the rough edges of Brexit is fast becoming something more fundamental.

As global instability grows and the US proves a less reliable partner, the pull of Europe, economically, politically and strategically, is becoming harder to resist.

With the US no longer a reliable ally for Europe, Brussels and London should “rebuild bridges that were demolished in 2016,” Ian Bond, deputy director of the Centre for European Reform, said earlier this year.

Bond argues that, sooner or later, the British government will have to accept that “it will not enjoy the same relationship with Washington in the future, however difficult it finds it.”

This would amount to the construction of a European alliance positioned in opposition to the US. Because, if Britain were to move closer to the EU, which Trump and JD Vance openly oppose, the United States “would likely end intelligence and security cooperation,” Bond warns.

How bold Starmer is willing to go in re-engaging with Europe is dubious, probably through fear of provoking those still wedded to the Brexit utopia, a constituency that, while diminished, remains vocal and influential in shaping the terms of debate.

Predictably, each time the government moves the UK even a millimetre closer to the EU, Reform UK, the Conservatives, and the pro-Brexit press, denounce it as a betrayal of the British people’s will, as expressed in the 2016 referendum.
Take the Express’s recent front page, which read:

“Brexit reset will cost UK £3bn a year.”

The coverage focused on criticism from shadow chancellor Mel Stride, who accused Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves of committing the UK to substantial payments “with no say, no vote and no scrutiny.”

Yet what this familiar “Brexpress” narrative struggles to confront is that the very arrangements now being criticised once underpinned economic stability and regional investment, both across the EU and within the UK itself. The outrage obscures a deeper contradiction: the benefits of cooperation are being attacked precisely because they require the kinds of contributions Brexit was supposed to eliminate.

It is little wonder, then, that committed Brexiteers appear increasingly tangled in their own arguments.

Earlier this month, Starmer said Britain needed to forge a “closer partnership” with the European Union on defence, security and the economy, citing the war in the Middle East. He told a news conference that “our long-term national interest requires closer partnership with our allies in Europe and with the European Union.”

Last week, the PM’s address to the nation was described by the Financial Times as “the most pro-European speech that he has given since winning power.” Acknowledging that “Brexit did deep damage to our economy,” he argued for a more ambitious partnership with the EU, suited to “the dangerous world that we must navigate together.”

And this week, he delivered one of his strongest criticisms of Trump yet, telling ITV’s Robert Peston he is “fed up” with how the actions of both Trump and Putin are affecting energy prices for UK residents. He also described the airstrike on Lebanon as “wrong” and “unjustifiable.”

As confidence in the US as an ally wanes, the UK is strengthening ties with Europe. On March 30, the European Council formally opened discussions with the UK on restoring cooperation in key areas, including financial contributions to the EU’s cohesion policy, participation in the internal electricity market, and re-entry into programmes such as Erasmus+. Framed by the government as a pragmatic ‘reset,’ these talks signal a steady move back towards structured cooperation.

Before Brexit, the UK contributed between £2.5 billion and £4 billion annually to the EU’s cohesion policy, funding that supported development in less prosperous regions across Europe, including Cornwall and West Wales. The arrangement was reciprocal, not one-sided, yet it was routinely portrayed by Brexit advocates as an intolerable burden.

Yet as reset inroads are made, Starmer’s formal position remains guarded. He has ruled out rejoining the customs union or single market, let alone the EU itself, likely wary of alienating pro-Brexit voters in former Labour strongholds. But the strategic case for closer alignment is strengthening by the day: a war in Ukraine that shows no sign of ending, and a volatile United States that looks increasingly unreliable as a partner.

If that trajectory continues, the political debate may shift more dramatically than Labour currently admits. As Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times,argues, a truly bold approach would be to make the case openly for rejoining the EU.

“That would give Labour something that it currently sorely lacks – a bold and positive agenda for the future. Rejoining the EU already commands majority support in Britain and is particularly popular among the young voters that Labour is losing to the Greens.”

And therein lies the deeper irony. Brexit was sold as a decisive break from Europe; yet, step by step, Britain is being drawn back towards it. The louder its original champions protest, the clearer it becomes that the settlement they fought for is proving neither stable nor sufficient. In the end, the forces that drove Brexit may also help to unravel it.

And none more so than a certain Donald J. Trump.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Comments are closed.