Article
In the 2024 General Election, the Labour manifesto was explicit. We stated that “there will be no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement.” As a party we promised the British people that a Labour government would respect the referendum result. Any attempt to align the UK with the EU and its regulatory system must therefore respect those principles and allow divergence. Anything less would be a failure to deliver on our manifesto commitment.
A Labour government operating outside the institutional frameworks of the European Union, the Single Market, and the Customs Union has, in important respects, a wider field of policy discretion than it would have had within them. This is not a question of rejecting cooperation with European partners, but of recognising that the UK now has greater latitude over how it structures its economy, regulates markets, and deploys public resources. For a government that seeks to intervene more actively in the economy, which this government does, that flexibility can be politically and economically significant which is why a return to the constraints of the EU would be a mistake.
One of the clearest areas of increased freedom lies in industrial strategy and state support. Since leaving the EU’s state aid regime, the UK has introduced its own domestic framework through the Subsidy Control Act 2022. This has enabled the government to structure support packages with greater speed and discretion. For example, targeted public investment into emerging green industries such as battery manufacturing, offshore wind supply chains, and carbon capture clusters, has been designed without the need for prior approval from the European Commission. While EU rules do allow subsidies, they are often very conditional and subject to complex notification processes which of course take time. The UK’s current framework allows more agile and speedy intervention, particularly where rapid deployment of capital is seen as strategically vital.
Public procurement is another area where policy freedom has translated into concrete change. The passage of the Procurement Act 2023 has allowed the government to reshape how contracts are awarded. Under this regime, contracting authorities can place greater emphasis on “social value,” including local job creation, skills development, and support for small and medium-sized enterprises. While EU procurement rules permitted some consideration of these factors, they were tightly constrained by requirements for non-discrimination and open competition across member states. The new UK system gives ministers and local authorities more latitude to align procurement with domestic economic and social priorities, locally and nationally.
Trade policy provides perhaps the most visible examples of post-EU flexibility. The UK has been able to implement and accede to trade agreements independently, including joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Membership of this Pacific-focused trade bloc would not have been possible as an EU member, as trade policy competence rests with the EU collectively. The government has also been able to tailor bilateral agreements, such as those with Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand to reflect UK-specific priorities. We have also struck deals with the United States and, crucially, India. While the economic gains from such deals are debated, the key point is that they represent policy choices made at the national level, rather than as part of a common external trade policy. We have also been able to escape some of the worst tariffs imposed by President Trump because of being outside the EU.
Regulatory autonomy has also been exercised in specific sectors. In financial services, for instance, the UK has begun to reform elements of the regulatory framework inherited from the EU, adjusting capital requirements and listing rules to better suit the structure of the City of London. These changes, undertaken through domestic legislation and regulatory action, would have required alignment with EU directives and regulations had the UK remained within the Single Market. Similarly, in areas such as gene editing and agricultural innovation, the UK has moved to diverge from EU rules by permitting new technologies under a different regulatory approach, reflecting domestic scientific and economic priorities. Also, providing an opportunity for investment to support economic growth which otherwise would not have existed.
Energy and environmental policy offer further examples. The UK has adjusted its approach to emissions trading by establishing its own UK Emissions Trading Scheme, replacing participation in the EU system. This allows the government to set caps and pricing mechanisms in line with domestic climate goals and economic conditions. In parallel, support mechanisms for renewable energy and nuclear development have been structured with fewer external constraints, enabling tailored approaches to financing and delivery. Considering the current global energy crisis emanating from the United States and Israel's war on Iran, that is a strategic advantage.
The political dimension of these changes should not be overlooked. The ability to design and implement policies through domestic institutions strengthens the link between decision-making and electoral accountability. Although a wave of left and right populism is currently sweeping the country, the important element is that whoever wins an election is responsible to the British people and cannot blame another authority. Measures such as procurement reform, subsidy allocation, and regulatory change are now more directly attributable to the government of the day, rather than being shaped through negotiation with multiple member states and EU institutions. For a Labour party that emphasises democratic renewal, this clarity can be an advantage.
Against this backdrop, the argument for returning to the EU’s core economic structures raises important questions. Rejoining the Single Market would entail accepting a wide body of rules governing goods, services, competition, and state support, along with a role for EU institutions in overseeing compliance. Membership of the Customs Union would require alignment with a common external tariff and limit the UK’s ability to pursue an independent trade policy. While these arrangements can reduce trade frictions and provide market access, they also reintroduce constraints on domestic policy choices. Returning to these institutions or formally aligning with them would be a regressive move, contrary to our manifesto commitments, and ultimately make the UK less competitive.
For a Labour government seeking to pursue an active industrial strategy, reshape procurement, and tailor regulation to national priorities, those constraints are not trivial. They would narrow the scope for targeted intervention, limit flexibility in responding to economic shocks, and require policy alignment even where domestic preferences might differ. The trade-off is therefore not simply economic but constitutional: it concerns where decisions are made and how much discretion national governments retain. At a time when the British economy is flatlining, remaining outside the growth restricting institutions of the EU is essential. institutional frameworks that limit domestic autonomy or returning to full alignment.
This does not mean that the current arrangements are without costs. Frictions in trade with the EU remain a challenge for some businesses, and close cooperation with European partners is essential in areas such as security, research, and environmental policy. A pragmatic approach would be to seek to reduce unnecessary barriers and deepen cooperation where it serves mutual interests which everyone would support. However, this can be pursued through agreements and partnerships without fully re-entering the EU, its institutions or through alignment.
Ultimately, the question is one of balance. Being outside the EU, the Single Market, and the Customs Union has given the UK government greater room to manoeuvre in key areas of economic policy. For a Labour administration that prioritises active government, regional development, and democratic accountability, that flexibility is a significant asset. Returning to those structures would recover some benefits in terms of market access, but at the cost of reintroducing constraints that could limit the government’s ability to act. Whether that trade-off is worthwhile is a political judgement, but from the perspective of policy freedom, remaining outside offers a broader range of options and will enable the Labour government to better deliver its programme for change.
