In what represents the most significant shift in Westminster's post-referendum rhetoric, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has publicly stated that Brexit has "not been good for Britain" whilst calling for closer alignment with the European Union.
The admission, reported by The Independent, marks the first time a serving Cabinet minister has explicitly rejected the economic benefits of leaving the EU. It represents a considerable political risk for the Labour government, which has carefully avoided reopening Brexit debates since taking office.
As they say in Westminster, "the constitution is what happens"—precedent matters more than law. And the precedent Ms Reeves is setting here is remarkable: a Chancellor willing to acknowledge economic reality even when it contradicts years of political consensus.
The political calculation is transparent. Labour inherited an economy struggling with anaemic growth, persistent inflation, and trading arrangements that have demonstrably harmed British exporters. The Office for Budget Responsibility has consistently projected that Brexit will reduce long-term GDP by approximately 4%, whilst business groups have complained about customs delays, regulatory divergence, and labour shortages.
By stating what economists have been saying privately for years, Ms Reeves is attempting to create political space for what she terms "closer EU alignment." The question, of course, is what this means in practice.
The Chancellor has been careful not to propose rejoining the single market or customs union—both remain politically toxic, particularly in the Red Wall constituencies that Labour must retain. Instead, she appears to be pursuing what might be called "alignment by stealth"—regulatory cooperation, veterinary agreements, youth mobility schemes, and enhanced security partnerships.
This approach echoes the strategy pursued by Theresa May during the Brexit negotiations: seek maximum economic integration whilst maintaining the fiction of meaningful sovereignty. Mrs May, it should be noted, was destroyed politically by this approach, caught between Brexiteers who saw betrayal and Remainers who saw inadequacy.
