UofG Centre for Public Policy

4 February 2026: Is the UK/EU ‘reset’ pledged in the Labour manifesto losing momentum? Professor Anand Menon, Director of UK in a Changing Europe, explores progress so far and what we might see in 2026, particularly with elections approaching in May and the potential 'wildcard' of US President Trump. 

Blog by Professor Anand Menon

Another year, another episode of the Brexit saga. A saga that has lasted the best part of ten years and is showing no sign of reaching a conclusion. Yet those anticipating a gripping and dramatic finale look set to be disappointed.

Last year saw some progress made in enhancing ties between the two sides. The process was bookended by the successful summit in May, and the agreement that the UK would rejoin the Erasmus programme just before Christmas.  Yet there was plenty to suggest that Keir Starmer’s fabled ‘reset’ might prove less straightforward than the government had assumed. 2026 promises more of the same, with international politics and the mercurial Donald Trump providing the wild card that might, at any moment, undermine the best laid plans (or my most considered prognostications).

Let’s start with that summit. In many ways, it exceeded expectations. Not only did the two sides sign off on a Security and Defence Pact, but they agreed to start negotiations on several things the UK wanted – an agricultural deal, alignment of UK and EUemissions trading schemes, and an agreement on UK participation in the EU electricity market. Equally, the EU ensured talks would start on a youth mobility scheme.

Back then in May, it felt like there was a real sense of joint endeavour uniting the two sides. We’d witnessed Independence Day and lived through those awful scenes from the Oval Office between Trump and Zelensky. There was real uncertainty in the air, and closer relations seemed a no brainer. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was moved to declare about UK participation in the EU’s SAFE programme (a new instrument financed by joint borrowing intended to helps member states increase expenditure on common procurement) that it would be a matter of ‘only a few weeks and then we should be done.’ 

Yet this sense of urgency and shared jeopardy seems to have dissipated. For all the (curious) determination of British Ministers – and indeed the Prime Minister himself on Kuenssberg the other week - to speak as the deals are as good as done, negotiations have proceeded slowly, and there are numerous potential technical and political obstacles to a successful conclusion.

And then there was the collapse of the SAFE negotiations - an inglorious end that underlined the inability of the two sides to prioritise joint security interests over narrow national interests (and, in the case of the EU, a desire to extort as much cash as possible from the UK).

Unperturbed, the UK Government has hinted that it wants to go even further. During that same interview with Laura Kuensberg, Keir Starmer intimated that the UK would be willing to consider alignment in areas beyond those already agreed.

Which is nice, albeit not particularly encouraging. If there’s one thing the EU has been clear about throughout the Brexit process, it has been its opposition to what it terms ‘cherry picking’ – or the ability of the UK to gain market access simply in those areas it chooses. More accurately, this amounts to no cherry picking unless the EU deems it to be in its own interests. After all, the deal reached in London last May allowed the UK to pick the emissions, agriculture and electricity cherries.

It is of course up to the EU to decide to which areas of its single market the UK may be allowed access. The key point here is that Brussels has pretty much reached the end of its tolerance. Any further alignment would require the UK simply to join the single market.

This, of course, was explicitly ruled out in the Labour manifesto. And the Government shows no signs of wanting to break that pledge. At the same time, however, a debate is starting within the Labour Party. Starmer’s reference to greater alignment came several weeks after Wes Streeting ostentatiously refused to rule out negotiating of a custom union.

That the Health Secretary chose to opine on an issue so far beyond his brief provided a stark illustration of the internal dynamics at work in Labour. Many if not most people are anticipating a leadership election following the bloody nose the Government is expected to receive in May’s elections.

As potential candidates begin their beauty parade, Europe will figure prominently in the debate. Not because it is a priority of the public – it is not – but because it is an issue dear to the hearts of many Labour members. Just as the positioning for a potential leadership election drove Conservatives to adopt ever more extreme positions on Brexit (to appeal to a wildly pro-Brexit membership), so, too will potential future leaders attempt to appeal to the pro-Europeanism of the average party member. Whether whatever is decided is something the EU might agree to will not cross anyone’s mind.

It is conceivable, however, that this might lead the party to adopt a more ambitious approach to the reset than we have seen to date. It is even possible that a bidding war might culminate in a winning candidate promising to ignore the manifesto.

Absent of such a development, it is hard to see how the relationship moves beyond the status quo. Certainly, there are gains to be had from the areas currently under negotiation. But the British Government’s own estimates put these at under 1% of GDP – far from the 4% plus that most economists now assume to be the overall negative impact of Brexit.

The wildcard here is obviously President Trump. Should the US ramp up its aggressive attitude towards Europe   - by seizing Greenland, say, or making clear that it will refuse to honour its NATO commitments, the calculations confronting both UK and EU will change fundamentally. Perhaps then shared geopolitical jeopardy might Trump narrower considerations of political and economic gain. If not, we’re probably doomed to the same old slow business as usual.

Author

Anand Menon is Director of the UK in a Changing Europe and Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at King’s College London. He has written widely on many aspects of EU politics and policy and on UK-EU relations. He is a frequent contributor to the media on matters relating to British relations with the EU.

---

First published: 4 February 2026