Lead:
Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have hardened their language on Brexit, according to a prominent Guardian columnist, who says the UK government is testing a new way of talking about Britain’s departure from the European Union. In a column published on 22 October, Rafael Behr writes that ministers have moved from treating Brexit as an awkward fact of life to describing it as a problem to fix. “The UK government is trying out a new Brexit stance, not to be mistaken for a change in policy. The shift is tonal,” Behr argues. He adds that Starmer and Reeves now frame Britain’s break with the EU as “an affliction,” after years of avoiding direct criticism. While Behr calls this frankness “the right way to go,” he contends that earlier reluctance to say so “has cost Labour precious time and credibility.”
Context and timing:
Behr’s column appeared online on Wednesday, 22 October 2025, as the national debate over Brexit’s impact continues to evolve. The focus on tone comes amid continuing questions over the economic and diplomatic effects of leaving the EU and how the government might seek practical improvements without reopening the core Brexit settlement.
Image Source: The Guardian
A sharper message from Labour’s top team
Behr’s piece centres on how Starmer and Reeves now speak about Brexit. He says they have shifted from a neutral description of the UK’s separation from the EU to a view that recognises damage. “Previously, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves talked about Britain’s detachment from the rest of Europe as a feature of the natural landscape, awkward to navigate perhaps, but nobody’s fault. Now they are prepared to say it is an affliction,” he writes.
The columnist stresses that this is not a policy change. He frames it as a rhetorical reset that admits the costs felt by firms, public services and communities since 2020. That matters politically. Since the 2016 referendum, Labour figures have often balanced the need to respect the result with a wish to repair ties with Europe. Behr argues that avoiding clear words about the scale of the problem held them back; acknowledging it may help them sell practical fixes.
Why tone matters in the Brexit debate
Language shapes how voters understand trade-offs. For much of the past few years, Labour leaders promised stability and a focus on domestic problems, while confirming they would not seek to rejoin the EU, the single market or the customs union. Behr suggests they are now more ready to say out loud that Brexit has made some of those problems harder and more expensive to solve.
That shift could create more room for incremental steps. By naming Brexit as a source of friction, ministers can argue more openly for deals that ease checks at borders, improve business confidence or boost cooperation in areas like science and security. Behr’s point is that honesty about costs can help build consent for change, even if core red lines remain in place.
The economic and trade backdrop
Brexit has reshaped the UK’s trading system. Since the transition period ended in late 2020, new customs procedures, rules-of-origin requirements and regulatory divergence have added complexity for exporters and importers. Many small and medium-sized firms report higher costs when selling into the EU compared with the pre-2021 regime. These are matters of process as much as politics, but they affect prices, choice and investment.
Official bodies have also set out long-run effects. The Office for Budget Responsibility has long said that Brexit will leave the UK’s productivity around 4% lower in the long term than it would have been inside the EU. Economists debate the exact size and timing of that impact, and other factors like the pandemic and energy prices have also hit growth. But the OBR’s judgment forms part of the policy backdrop that makes the government’s tone significant.
Policy stays the same, but scope for targeted deals
Behr emphasises that the government has not changed its headline policy. Ministers have ruled out rejoining EU institutions. Yet a sharper narrative can still shape a working agenda within existing frameworks. Analysts often point to practical options, such as a veterinary or sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to cut checks on food and animal products, and wider mutual recognition deals that reduce duplicate paperwork for certain sectors.
Youth mobility, research partnerships and security cooperation are other areas frequently discussed by experts. These do not require reopening the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, but they demand political will and careful negotiation. A government that speaks candidly about Brexit’s downsides may have an easier task explaining why such deals matter to jobs, prices and services at home.
Political risks and the road ahead
Any tonal shift carries risks. Brexit remains a defining issue for many voters. Some will welcome straight talk about the challenges. Others may see it as an attempt to relitigate a settled question. Behr’s argument is that denying the problem did not work; that recognition is a prerequisite for progress. The politics of delivery will still be complex, especially across regions and sectors that felt Brexit’s effects in different ways.
Relations with EU institutions also matter. European leaders have said in recent years that they are open to pragmatic cooperation, provided the UK meets agreed standards and accepts enforcement mechanisms where relevant. A more candid UK position might help rebuild trust. But it will also test the government’s capacity to explain compromises and their benefits.
What this means for business and public services
For businesses, certainty and friction reduction are priorities. Companies that trade across the Channel have adapted since 2021, but many still want simpler procedures and clearer timelines for regulatory change. If the government’s stronger language translates into technical agreements, sectors like food, chemicals, automotive and logistics could see incremental gains in time and cost.
Public services, from the NHS to universities, also watch these signals. Mobility schemes can affect workforce planning. Research ties can bring funding and talent. Better cooperation on policing and data can improve service delivery. None of this amounts to a reversal of Brexit. But it does reflect a different mindset: one that focuses on making the current settlement work better, even as political boundaries remain.
A columnist’s case for candour
Behr’s critique is, at heart, a plea for honesty. He calls the new rhetoric “the right way to go,” and says that refusing to admit Brexit’s harms earlier “has cost Labour precious time and credibility.” His view does not bind the