Ed Davey’s call for Labour to drop its ‘torpor and timidity’ and rejoin the single market is welcome and shows the EU’s one consistent supporter in UK politics, the Lib Dems (and the Liberals before them).
The first thing to say is that his statement puts paid to all those ideas about Lib Dems having no policies (beyond mending the local church roof, of course) while other parties at least make it clear where they stand. Really? Is that how Starmer’s Labour Party behaves? Ed Davey is right to say that the Labour Party’s talk of a ‘reset’ just seems like a more polite ‘No’ than the Conservatives managed. But rejoining the single market is clear.
Secondly, rejoining the single market is not rejoining the EU. It was one of the options – often it was called the ‘Norway option’ – that was considered after the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016. The referendum never mentioned what arrangement with the EU the UK should adopt after leaving – that was part of the mess Farage left us with.
Norway was one of the countries that had a referendum on entering the EEC (as it was then) in 1973, alongside Denmark and Ireland. The UK entered without a referendum but then in 1975 voted in a referendum to stay in. But Norway voted in 1973 not to join the EU. Their reasons had a lot to do with concerns about the Common Agricultural Policy and (perhaps more important) Common Fisheries Policy – they have 2,000 miles of coastline to protect. These are probably the two policies that the UK had the most concerns about during its time inside the EU, and they don’t apply to Norway as a member of the EEA (European Economic Area). Agriculture and fisheries are completely excluded from the core EEA agreement. Because Norway is a single market member through the EEA, its farmers and fishermen remain outside of both EU policies. The UK can do the same thing if it rejoins the single market as a member of the EEA.
Thirdly, returning to the single market would mean paying money into the EU budget and being bound by decisions of the European Court of Justice on trade matters. But that is hardly a big surprise. If you’re part of a trading bloc with all the advantages of being able to negotiate trade agreements as part of a half-million strong grouping, then it makes sense to have a common policy when making those agreements. Yes, Reform will scream about money going to Brussels again, as they did on the side of their battle bus in 2016, but we will have far more to gain financially than we lose through paying our membership fee. For the medium term, this is certainly part of the answer to Jamie Dalzell’s question in Lib Dem Voice about how we will find the money to pay for important programmes like social care and strengthening defence.
Fourthly, the point about immigration. Yes, the UK will return to the free movement of people from countries within the EEA (essentially the EU plus Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein). And yes, you can be sure that Reform will present the return to the single market as opening the floodgates to more arrivals from elsewhere in the EEA (Viking invasion?) In fact, net migration was down considerably in the last year (2024-5) for which records exist, and the ONS (Office for National Statistics) makes clear that most of the arrivals were from outside the EU. More EU nationals left the UK than arrived. Moreover, the issue that the public are most concerned about is those seeking asylum, and they do not come from the EEA. Under EU Law, EEA countries are seen as ‘safe countries of origin.’ They are all bound by the European Convention of Human Rights, upheld by the European Court of Human Rights which the Tories and Reform would like to see disappear. While the European Convention remains in place, asylum claims from EEA countries would automatically be deemed inadmissible.
Ed Davey has been brave and clear, responding to a world which has changed over the last decade. There will be a financial cost to being part of the single market, but the membership fee is outweighed by the benefits of being part of a single trading bloc – and it is being in the single market, not simply being part of a customs union, as the present government appears to be proposing, that will deliver those financial benefits. The UK has become poorer and more isolated in an increasingly dangerous world over the last decade. Ed Davey’s announcement is a step towards reversing that. It is the right policy for this government or its successor.
* Mark Corner is a UK national, who teaches economic history and philosophy at the University of Leuven, is married to a Czech EU official and lives in Brussels. He has just published A Tale of Two Unions suggesting that Brexit may damage the British Union unless the UK becomes more positive about the way the European Union is structured.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Ex-Labour MP tells of being sidelined to enable Starmer parachutist
Reform hold High Fell by 5 votes
Cromford Moor Mine and the legend of the Black Rocks
Offside: politics meets football in Iran
Chloe
Peter Martin
Roland
David Raw
Paul Walter
20 Comments
“ Yes, the UK will return to the free movement of people from countries within the EEA (essentially the EU plus Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein).”
So, solve the issue of people crossing in small boats in a stroke – once we join the single market, anyone in France will be allowed to move to the UK….
“Ed Davey’s bold step”………….. ?????
Ed Davey’s call for Labour to drop its ‘torpor and timidity’ and rejoin the single market…
That would end any pretence that the UK is a democracy. It would overturn a “once in a generation” democratic decision and turn the country into a satrapy. It would also snuff out any prospect of economic recovery in the foreseeable future. It would bring a deluge of new rules and regulations that Britain has avoided since being outside the EU (395,000 pages worth as at January 2025).
This is the ‘single market’ you’d be joining: where four out of ten companies are looking to leave and where six out of ten new jobs are to perform EU imposed bureaucracy…
‘More and more companies are moving away from Austria’:
https://www.krone.at/3291244
‘German firms hire 325,000 staff since 2022 just to handle bureaucracy’ [October 2025]:
https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/10/german-firms-hire-325000-staff-since-2022-just-to-handle-bureaucracy/
Secondly, rejoining the single market is not rejoining the EU.
It effectively is. The correct name for the ‘single market’ is the EU Internal Market. It requires EEA membership which means being subject to three-quarters of all EU Law as the Norwegians attest. It would turn the UK into an EU satrapy where, for example, we wouldn’t even be free to decide how to run our train services…
‘Norway: Rail workers hold national strikes over EU rail privatisation’ [October 2019]:
https://labourheartlands.com/norway-rail-workers-hold-national-strikes-over-eu-rail-privatisation/
It was one of the options – often it was called the ‘Norway option’ – that was considered after the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016.
No. It was considered long before the Referendum campaign (notably by Richard North and Nigel Farage as a “stepping stone” to leaving) and rejected well before the campaign started.
Ed Davey is right to say that the Labour Party’s talk of a ‘reset’ just seems like a more polite ‘No’ than the Conservatives managed.
Labour’s “reset” is a betrayal of the UK’s democratic decision to leave the EU. It’s costly and in many ways greatly damaging to the country as explained in the Prosperity Institute’s ‘BRIEFING — A Road to Nowhere: Why the UK-EU Reset is Not the Answer’ [February 2026]:
https://www.prosperity.com/media-publications/briefing-a-road-to-nowhere-why-the-uk-eu-reset-is-not-the-answer/
——————
Agriculture and fisheries are completely excluded from the core EEA agreement.
Let’s see what Gemini has to say…
Are agriculture and fisheries completely excluded from the core EEA agreement?:
https://gemini.google.com/
“But Norway voted in 1973 not to join the EU. “ The EU didn’t exist in 1973, and that is not just a a *clerical error*. Harold Wilson gave the UK a vote on FOR or AGAINST our membership of the EEC in 1975. The EEC was an *economic structure*, and NOT a *political structure*, and for many in the UK it made sense, where some regions were good at growing to tomatoes, and other regions were good at making steel or making jet engines. The EEC was a kind of economic, “stick with your knitting” for the European regions, and their respective expertise.
The EEC which UK voters readily accepted (in 1975), was abused by political deceit, and morphed into an EC (Economic Community), and an EU (European Union), using treaties which the UK voters never had a referendum on !!!. Having to accommodate butter mountains and wine lakes was one thing that we adapted to under the EEC, but an unelected political structure signed up to *without a referendum* was a step way too far.
Sooner or later like the Japanese soldier, you are going to have to leave the jungle and accept that the Brexit war is over and done.
There will be a financial cost to being part of the single market, but the membership fee is outweighed by the benefits of being part of a single trading bloc…
There are no net financial benefits. The UK already has full tariff and quota free access to the ‘single market’ (the EU Internal Market) with the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). When an EU member the UK benefited by an estimated €10 per head — about £500 million a year: less than a twentieth of the then EU membership contribution. That’s not from some ‘Brexity’ eurosceptic source, but from the ”decidedly pro-EU” German think-tank, Bertelsmann Stiftung…
‘Policy Brief #2014/02: 20 years of the European single market: growth effects of EU integration’:
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/publications/publication/did/20-years-of-the-european-single-market-growth-effects-of-eu-integration/
The UK has become poorer and more isolated in an increasingly dangerous world over the last decade.
The UK has outgrown the eurozone and kept pace with France. Not great, but then it’s largely remained a shadow member of the EU, still encrusted with the same regulatory burden. To do better, the UK needs to break free and start fully utilising the many Brexit freedoms. Far from being “isolated” the UK’s membership of the fast growing CPTPP puts the country right at the heart of world trade.
The referendum never mentioned what arrangement with the EU the UK should adopt after leaving…
Yes it did! ‘Take Back Control of our money, borders, laws and trade’ encapsulated the objective of Leave in a single sentence. It was repeated ad nauseam. That clearly requires leaving the EU in its entirety.
A plan was on the official Vote Leave site…
‘A framework for taking back control and establishing a new UK-EU deal after 23 June’:
https://archive.is/JD3R0
… – that was part of the mess Farage left us with.
Nigel Farage was not part of the official Vote Leave campaign. Nor was he in involved in implementing the decision. The “mess” was caused by the Conservative government who appointed May and Robbins, remainers both, who set out to sabotage and subvert the decision with their BRINO Chequers ‘deal’.
UKcould keep special pre Brexit terms if it rejoined the EU—-Michel Barnier says—-Guardian article. Negotiations can achieve great things.
A rebuttal to the above comments:
On democracy
The 2016 referendum was advisory, passed with 52% on promises later shown to be misleading (the £350m/week NHS claim being the most notorious). Democracy isn’t a one-time event — continued democratic majorities now favour closer EU ties, and reversing a prior decision through democratic means is itself democratic, not anti-democratic.
On the single market’s supposed failures
Cherry-picking Austria’s industrial relocation or German bureaucracy ignores that the EU remains the world’s largest single trading bloc. The UK’s post-Brexit trade performance has been notably weak, with exports to the EU falling significantly and businesses facing exactly the kind of friction and paperwork that was supposed to disappear.
On the financial case
The above’s own Bertelsmann citation is from 2014 — before Brexit reshaped the landscape. Post-Brexit analyses have consistently shown UK GDP losses of 4-6% compared to counterfactual projections, representing hundreds of billions in lost output, dwarfing any membership fee.
On “taking back control”
The UK now routinely adopts EU regulations anyway to maintain market access, but without any seat at the table shaping them. This is arguably less sovereignty, not more.
On CPTPP
This agreement covers markets already largely accessible to the UK, and even optimistic projections suggest only marginal GDP gains.
And a couple of areas the above failed to cover:
On geopolitics
This may be the most consequential argument of all. The world of 2026 looks nothing like 2016. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, growing Chinese assertiveness, and an increasingly unpredictable United States have fundamentally altered the security landscape. A united, coherent Europe is more necessary than ever, and Britain outside the EU has visibly struggled to project the diplomatic weight it once did. The EU’s coordinated response to Russia — sanctions, aid to Ukraine, energy diversification — demonstrated exactly the kind of collective power that isolated nation-states cannot replicate. Meanwhile, the UK finds itself awkwardly positioned: too detached from Europe to fully shape its security architecture, yet too small alone to counterbalance the major powers. Rejoining would restore Britain’s role as a leading voice in shaping European and therefore global policy, rather than watching from the sidelines as decisions affecting British interests are made without it.
And from a personal perspective as a former resident of Sweden and Denmark, married to a Dane and a parent/grandparent/great grandparent:
On social cohesion
Brexit has left deep and arguably still-unhealed social divisions. The 52/48 split cut across generations, nations, classes and communities in ways that continue to fester. Young people in particular feel they had their futures — including freedom of movement, Erasmus exchanges, and the ability to live and work across 27 countries — taken away by a narrow majority skewed heavily toward older voters. Scotland and Northern Ireland, which both voted Remain, have seen separatist and unionist tensions inflamed in part by Brexit’s consequences. Rejoining, or even meaningfully moving closer to the EU, would go some way toward healing these fractures, restoring opportunities for younger generations and reducing the constitutional strain on the union itself. The thread’s framing of Brexit as a settled democratic verdict ignores that it has been socially corrosive in ways its proponents never acknowledged.
The fundamental problem is that geography doesn’t change — roughly 40% of UK exports go to the EU, and no trade deal fully replicates frictionless single market access. In an era of great power competition, political and social geography matter just as much as economic geography. Ed’s announcement reflects a pragmatic and necessary solution towards what I will hope is full membership of the EU.
First post again as a rebuttal to the above posts:
On democracy
The 2016 referendum was advisory, passed with 52% on promises later shown to be misleading (the £350m/week NHS claim being the most notorious). Democracy isn’t a one-time event — continued democratic majorities now favour closer EU ties, and reversing a prior decision through democratic means is itself democratic, not anti-democratic.
On the single market’s supposed failures
Cherry-picking Austria’s industrial relocation or German bureaucracy ignores that the EU remains the world’s largest single trading bloc. The UK’s post-Brexit trade performance has been notably weak, with exports to the EU falling significantly and businesses facing exactly the kind of friction and paperwork that was supposed to disappear.
On the financial case
The thread’s own Bertelsmann citation is from 2014 — before Brexit reshaped the landscape. Post-Brexit analyses have consistently shown UK GDP losses of 4-6% compared to counterfactual projections, representing hundreds of billions in lost output, dwarfing any membership fee.
On “taking back control”
The UK now routinely adopts EU regulations anyway to maintain market access, but without any seat at the table shaping them. This is arguably less sovereignty, not more.
On CPTPP
This agreement covers markets already largely accessible to the UK, and even optimistic projections suggest only marginal GDP gains.
Hardly bold, hardly noticed, except by Jeff.
Hey Jeff, the UK is not a democracy and hasn’t been one for years. Glad you think that the things people voted for – £350 million extra each week for the NHS and immigration cut,
Turkey joining the EU, the other countries leaving the EU, have happened. If the lack of UK growth for the past 10 years can’t be blamed on Breixt, then it must be the billionaires.
As someone who voted remain . Can those above explain to me why turnouts at EU elections every 5 years were so poor in the UK.
EU economies are hardly forging ahead as outlined by the German Chancellor. All throughout our membership my hometown where I grew up continued in its decline as industries closed and jobs were lost , membership never addressed that economic decline. And finally Rejoin the EU national march was very poorly attended yesterday – around 1500 . And Rejoin the EU party stood at Makerfield and got 35 votes – significantly less than Count Binface.
I do not sense any clamour whatsoever in rejoining anytime soon.
Keith Creswell has covered the points I’d want to make on Jeff’s comments, but I’d like to stress that the wording of the referendum in 2016 was about leaving the EU, not how to manage the UK’s relations with the EU afterwards. The ‘Norway’ option is perfectly consistent with leaving the EU – after all, Norway voted not to join the EU. So it isn’t ignoring the vote or denying ‘the people’s choice’ to opt for returning to the single market.
That vote in 2016 cannot be denied, though note five things. First, unlike the vote on giving the Scots devolution in 1979, there was no requirement in terms of a quorum (in that case 40% of Scottish voters had to vote in favour, so the vote failed even though more Scots voted Yes than No). Secondly, expats like myself were not allowed to vote, even though we were obviously heavily impacted by it. Thirdly, the Scots in their referendum two years earlier had given 16-year-olds the vote, but 16 and 17 year olds were not able to vote in the Brexit referendum, despite the fact that they would be heavily affected, not least in their educational choices. Fourthly, leaving the EU was trumpeted as restoring sovereignty to the UK Parliament, but a majority of MPs at the time were opposed to Brexit. If it had really restored the power of a sovereign Parliament, the measure would have been thrown out. It was in effect the triumph of the will of the people over the will of their representatives in Parliament. You might say that this is a good thing and a better form of democracy, but it has nothing to do with restoring a sovereign Parliament. Fifthly, the vote did terrible damage to the unity of the UK. The Scots, having been warned by Cameron that if they voted to leave the UK in 2014 they would be unable to stay in the EU, then find themselves dragged out of the EU against their will by the English!! I believe the vote should have required a majority in each of the four ‘nations’ (the effect of the vote on Northern Ireland, of course, was and is highly significant). The damage that vote has done to the unity of the UK as a single nation-state, which I support, let alone its relations with the rest of Europe, was enormous and its effect still lingers.
“Can those above explain to me why turnouts at EU elections every 5 years were so poor in the UK.” Mainly poor media coverage which totally missed the point of elections to the European Parliament and the role of MEPs, which is to make EU-wide policy. Media coverage and party campaigns (sadly including ours) focused on the UK’s role in the EU, which is nothing to do with MEPs as it was a domestic issue not an EU issue.
“Rejoin the EU party stood at Makerfield and got 35 votes – significantly less than Count Binface.” People don’t generally vote for single-issue parties. The cause and its popularity is irrelevant.
Alex; National Rejoin March was poorly attended which surprised me in all honesty.
Ukip done very well as a one policy party initially. I don’t sense any real enthusiasm for rejoining anytime soon.
Opposition parties continued support for Brexit and staying out makes it difficult to frame any serious policy around membership.
Is articulating long standing party policy (policy paper 144) a ‘bold step’?
The problem with Ed Davey’s speech that it leaves too many questions unanswered. Aspiration has its role, but at some point the party has to come up with some detailed proposals on what trade-offs it’s prepared to accept and precisely why. At present people are simply either putting their own interpretation on what is being proposed by the party, or simply debating the issues in the most general terms.
After ten years we really should have something concrete to say about what each step towards a closer union involves, how that step will be implemented, and how it will be sold to voters.