The UK will not rejoin the European Union or enter into a customs union with the bloc, the minister leading efforts to reset relations with Brussels has said.

Nick Thomas-Symonds, the government’s European affairs minister, said there was “no appetite” in Britain to return to the debates that dominated politics after the Brexit referendum.

Speaking ahead of a speech in Brussels, he said the government wanted to strengthen cooperation with the EU but ruled out arrangements that would bind the UK into a customs union.

Customs union ruled out

Thomas-Symonds said even a bespoke arrangement similar to those the EU has with countries such as Turkey would not be pursued.

“We won’t have a customs union,” he said. “We will never go back to the days of making undeliverable promises on the side of red buses.”

His comments come despite some Labour figures backing closer economic ties with the bloc. In December, 13 Labour MPs supported a Liberal Democrat proposal calling for Britain to rejoin the customs union, which passed in the House of Commons.

However, the government has made clear that such a step is not part of its plans.

Push for closer cooperation

Thomas-Symonds said the focus instead was on improving cooperation in practical areas while respecting the outcome of the 2016 referendum.

He argued that closer alignment with European rules in some sectors should not be treated as politically controversial.

“We have to be clear that alignment is not a dirty word,” he said.

The government hopes to reach new agreements with the EU covering areas such as food and drink standards and youth mobility.

Officials say they aim to have parts of the new relationship framework in place by 23 June, the tenth anniversary of the referendum on EU membership.

No return to EU membership debate

Asked whether Britain might one day rejoin the EU, Thomas-Symonds said he did not believe that scenario was likely.

“I don’t see that, and I don’t see us returning to the debates of the past,” he said.

He added that his discussions with voters suggested there was support for improving relations with the EU without reopening arguments about membership.

Political tensions over EU ties

The minister acknowledged that debate over Britain’s future relationship with the bloc continues within UK politics.

Some senior Labour figures have previously spoken in favour of closer economic integration with Europe. Foreign Secretary David Lammy has said customs unions can boost economic growth, while Health Secretary Wes Streeting has suggested deeper trade links should be considered.

Thomas-Symonds said the government’s approach was guided by what it viewed as the national interest.

He also warned that efforts to rebuild ties with the EU could be jeopardised if a future government sought to abandon the agreements being negotiated.

“The UK and the EU are facing very similar challenges,” he said, adding that creating new trade barriers between the two sides would damage both economies.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Source · 15.March 2026

View full article

I was trading with European countries before the single market came about and the regulations were very restrictive. In 1982 I took 6 small medical units in my car down to a distributor in the south of France. At no time till I handed them over did anyone look at the goods, all the authorities were interested in was a multitude of paperwork stamped and signed.

The single market was a tremendous boost to UK small business, probably providing the most lucrative domestic market in the world.

Then the uninformed decided to go back to the way it was.

AI Overview

UK small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have faced significant declines, challenges, and reduced competitiveness since Brexit, driven by increased trade barriers, compliance costs, and labor shortages.

Studies show product-focused SMEs were disproportionately affected, with food and drink exports to the EU dropping by 34% in the immediate aftermath.

Largest market on their doorstep and they want to rather get deals with India.

39 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Largest market on their doorstep and they want to rather get deals with India.

Back in the early 2000s I used to buy a lot of imported stuff, buying from Europe was about 2x the cost of buying from the USA.

Europe is simply too expensive to have as a trading partner.

50 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Largest market on their doorstep and they want to rather get deals with India.

They won't be screwed as badly as they were and are by the Europeans. The reality is that several European nations have been exploiting the EU for their personal national gain, using the EU to bully other countries. Belgium, Luxembourg and France are the worst offenders. Most of the UK's problems with integration and transacting with the EU post Brexit are driven by these three. The Belgian attitude is nothing new. It blocked the free trade deal between the EU and Canada for years in an attempt to obtain higher subsidies. It has done the same thing to the UK's attempts to transact with the EU. Many EU countries are ready and willing to settle with the UK, but their good faith is poisoned by a marginal nation like Belgium. Luxembourg is often described as the money laundering capital of the EU. It doesn't want the UK around, because the London city bankers were an effective alternative to their activities. Both Belgium and Luxembourg exist because of the EU's large subsidies that keep them afloat. Extorting the UK ensures that the EU money will continue to support their states.

While I believe the EU stabilized trade among members, prior to its birth there were a few horror stories. The infamous "butter mountain" were part of massive, government-subsidized surpluses of butter that accumulated in the European Economic Community (EEC, now EU) during the 1970s and 1980s. The EEC bought excess butter to stabilize markets, leading to mountains of items, along with "wine lakes".

The surpluses largely disappeared by 2017 and have not been seen again. They have strived for stability since.

41 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

They won't be screwed as badly as they were and are by the Europeans. The reality is that several European nations have been exploiting the EU for their personal national gain, using the EU to bully other countries. Belgium, Luxembourg and France are the worst offenders. Most of the UK's problems with integration and transacting with the EU post Brexit are driven by these three. The Belgian attitude is nothing new. It blocked the free trade deal between the EU and Canada for years in an attempt to obtain higher subsidies. It has done the same thing to the UK's attempts to transact with the EU. Many EU countries are ready and willing to settle with the UK, but their good faith is poisoned by a marginal nation like Belgium. Luxembourg is often described as the money laundering capital of the EU. It doesn't want the UK around, because the London city bankers were an effective alternative to their activities. Both Belgium and Luxembourg exist because of the EU's large subsidies that keep them afloat. Extorting the UK ensures that the EU money will continue to support their states.

However, the countries you mentioned are net contributors to the EU budget.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Back in the early 2000s I used to buy a lot of imported stuff, buying from Europe was about 2x the cost of buying from the USA.

Europe is simply too expensive to have as a trading partner.

And that's why the EU only represents 42% of UK's imports! 😀

4 hours ago, candide said:

However, the countries you mentioned are net contributors to the EU budget.

Since when has Belgium or Luxembourg paid in more to the EU than they have received?

The French profit from the EU agricultural subsidies and the closed market. Yes the French are overall contributors, but it is repaid through the protected markets that benefit the inefficient French manufacturers. The two countries who disproportionately carry the EU are Germany and the Nederlands. The refugees pouring into the UK via the channel are the result of France's intentional actions.

5 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

They won't be screwed as badly as they were and are by the Europeans. The reality is that several European nations have been exploiting the EU for their personal national gain, using the EU to bully other countries. Belgium, Luxembourg and France are the worst offenders. Most of the UK's problems with integration and transacting with the EU post Brexit are driven by these three. The Belgian attitude is nothing new. It blocked the free trade deal between the EU and Canada for years in an attempt to obtain higher subsidies. It has done the same thing to the UK's attempts to transact with the EU. Many EU countries are ready and willing to settle with the UK, but their good faith is poisoned by a marginal nation like Belgium. Luxembourg is often described as the money laundering capital of the EU. It doesn't want the UK around, because the London city bankers were an effective alternative to their activities. Both Belgium and Luxembourg exist because of the EU's large subsidies that keep them afloat. Extorting the UK ensures that the EU money will continue to support their states.

All EU member states - including the UK when it was a member - seek to use the EU to further their national interest. Why should that be a surprise?

The Belgium "attitude" is determined by their constitution. Major reforms such as trade deals require all 5 Belgian regions to agree to the proposal. Wrt the Canada - EU deal, 4 of the Belgian regional governments approved the deal but Wallonia did not and the Belgian federal government therefore could not sign off on the deal. It was not an attempt by the Belgium government to get higher subsidies as you suggest.

The ideas that Belgium, Luxembourg and France are bullying their fellow EU member states and that Belgium are attempting to poison other members against the UK are, frankly, nonsense. Where is there any evidence to support these hypotheses? It is similarly nonsensical to suggest that these countries and the EU are extorting the UK. Again, where is there any evidence to support this proposition.

Luxembourg has benefitted from some companies relocating their operations from London post-Brexit. Why shouldn't they? To state the blindingly obvious, Brexit was a self-inflicted wound.

It would be naive to think that there is no 'dirty' money circulating in Luxembourg, but I doubt that the Luxembourgish could teach the shadier institutions in the City of London much about money laundering.

22 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Since when has Belgium or Luxembourg paid in more to the EU than they have received?

The French profit from the EU agricultural subsidies and the closed market. Yes the French are overall contributors, but it is repaid through the protected markets that benefit the inefficient French manufacturers. The two countries who disproportionately carry the EU are Germany and the Nederlands. The refugees pouring into the UK via the channel are the result of France's intentional actions.

How on earth are the contributions made to the EU budget by France, Germany and the Netherlands respectively, the CAP, and the refugee crisis in the Channel interrelated?

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

How on earth are the contributions made to the EU budget by France, Germany and the Netherlands respectively, the CAP, and the refugee crisis in the Channel interrelated?

Related because they reflect the self interests of some countries.

Belgium wants to keep bleeding the EU for the generous subsidies, so it makes any discussions difficult until Germany and others agree top keep the bloated payouts to Belgium going. That's what it did on the EU Canada free trade treaty. it blocked the agreement until the EU offered more money to it. Belgium was not supportive of the UK efforts. it's position probably would have. changed had it.been paid off.

Luxembourg didn't want the UK competition for its financial services and shell company activities.

France wanted to humiliate the UK and have it give up more of its sovereignty in. any agreement with the EU. It aided and abetted to deluge of migrants across the channel to pressure the UK. Macron stated that if the UK had been in the EU, there wouldn't have been a migrant crisis. France has been dumping its migrant problem on the Uk.

It was a crazy decision to leave the EU. Our idiot leader decided to let plumbers and electricians take such an important decision, by referendum. It's been a disaster, and foreign funded Farage hasn't accepted responsibility for it.

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

IRelated because they reflect the self interests of some countries.

Belgium wants to keep bleeding the EU for the generous subsidies, so it makes any discussions difficult until Germany and others agree top keep the bloated payouts to Belgium going. That's what it did on the EU Canada free trade treaty. it blocked the agreement until the EU offered more money to it. Belgium was not supportive of the UK efforts. it's position probably would have. changed had it.been paid off.

Luxembourg didn't want the UK competition for its financial services and shell company activities.

France wanted to humiliate the UK and have it give up more of its sovereignty in. any agreement with the EU. It aided and abetted to deluge of migrants across the channel to pressure the UK. Macron stated that if the UK had been in the EU, there wouldn't have been a migrant crisis. France has been dumping its migrant problem on the Uk.

Belgium (and Luxembourg) do not "... (bleed) the EU for the generous subsidies ...", they receive monies from the EU for the administrative expenses incurred in housing and running the various EU institutions such as the European Commission, the European Court of Justice, etc: Neither country is in a position whereby they can blackmail Germany or any of the other EU member states. What are they going to do? Blockage the buildings?

I have already explained why Belgium did not initially sign off the Canada - EU trade deal and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the receipt of additional subsidies.

In what context - and in what way - was Belgium not supportive of the UK's efforts?

Luxembourg's financial sector was doing quite nicely while the UK was an EU member. If anything, it was concerned that Brexit might cause a flight of funds to non-European financial hubs such as New York.

Macron did not state that there would not be a migrant crisis in the UK if we had remained in the EU. What he said was that having left the EU - and the Dublin Agreement - the UK had no regulatory framework to return illegal migrants to the EU. In any event, I thought that we were promised that it would be easier to deal with illegal migration from outside of the EU.

Where is the evidence to suggest that France is aiding and abetting illegal migration into the UK and dumping its' migrant problems on us?

All this begs the question, 'If the Withdrawal Agreement was such a bad deal for the UK, why did the UK government sign it'?

The UK government's views on rejoining the EU or a customs union with them are disappointing but not surprising. This government seems to specialise in disappointment.

The minister's comments also show how out of touch this government is with public opinion. Nick Thomas-Symonds suggests that there is no public appetite for rejoining the EU when, in fact, the latest opinion poll (conducted this month) suggests that 55% favour rejoining the EU.

3 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Since when has Belgium or Luxembourg paid in more to the EU than they have received?

The French profit from the EU agricultural subsidies and the closed market. Yes the French are overall contributors, but it is repaid through the protected markets that benefit the inefficient French manufacturers. The two countries who disproportionately carry the EU are Germany and the Nederlands. The refugees pouring into the UK via the channel are the result of France's intentional actions.

It seems you are right about Luxembourg. Only.

https://brilliantmaps.com/eu-budget

1 hour ago, candide said:

It seems you are right about Luxembourg. Only.

https://brilliantmaps.com/eu-budget

Deliberately misleading graphic. It excludes increased trade benefits.

The electorate is changing older ones dying off younger ones becoming eligible to vote. They are the ones who will decide whether the UK rejoins or not.

Uk is right to stay well away from the EU, no good will come of that

As soon as coward starmer is gone they can rebuild the special relationship with us again

7 minutes ago, EastBayRay said:

Uk is right to stay well away from the EU, no good will come of that

As soon as coward starmer is gone they can rebuild the special relationship with us again

I'm surprised you think that Starmer's replacement will make much difference, but like you, I'm hopeful they might.

22 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Back in the early 2000s I used to buy a lot of imported stuff, buying from Europe was about 2x the cost of buying from the USA.

I would suggest that the growth of stores like Lidl and Aldi would suggest otherwise.

However the main benefit of the single market was that SMEs could export without needing an export department to deal with the admin. Contrary to what some make think SMEs are very important to the UK economy, but the misinformed sold them down the river. A self inflicted hinderence to productivity.

AI Overview

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are absolutely vital to the UK economy, functioning as its "backbone" and main engine for growth. Comprising over 99% of all businesses, they employ roughly 60% of the private sector workforce (about 16 million people) and generate over £2.8 trillion in turnover.

Deleted.

On 3/16/2026 at 7:43 PM, RayC said:

The UK government's views on rejoining the EU or a customs union with them are disappointing but not surprising. This government seems to specialise in disappointment.

Glad to see you've finally seen the light. You could only blame the Tories for so long.

On 3/16/2026 at 7:43 PM, RayC said:

The minister's comments also show how out of touch this government is with public opinion. Nick Thomas-Symonds suggests that there is no public appetite for rejoining the EU when, in fact, the latest opinion poll (conducted this month) suggests that 55% favour rejoining the EU.

Then Labour should base their next election campaign on a promise to have a rejoin referendum. If it's that popular they will romp home like the Tories did when they campaigned on a leave referendum.

Money. Mouth. Put.

That's OK. They could get Canada instead.

Canada could join EU, French foreign minister says

https://www.politico.eu/article/canada-could-join-eu-says-french-foreign-minister-jean-noel-barrot/

Definitely better for Canada than joining the US.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Glad to see you've finally seen the light. You could only blame the Tories for so long.

Blaming the Tories for 14 years of (largely) misrule - especially setting the scene for the disaster that is Brexit - and accepting that this Labour government have been a crushing disappointment -and achieved little - are not mutually exclusive positions to hold.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Then Labour should base their next election campaign on a promise to have a rejoin referendum. If it's that popular they will romp home like the Tories did when they campaigned on a leave referendum.

Money. Mouth. Put.

Unfortunately, it would appear unlikely that Labour will run on a 'Rejoin' platform if Nick Thomas-Symonds is speaking on behalf of this government.

Sir u-turn is probably more interested in the Pakistan stone market for when her indoors starts asking awkward questions when his Ukrainian rent boys appear in court next week🤔

On 3/16/2026 at 9:45 AM, sandyf said:

I was trading with European countries before the single market came about and the regulations were very restrictive. In 1982 I took 6 small medical units in my car down to a distributor in the south of France. At no time till I handed them over did anyone look at the goods, all the authorities were interested in was a multitude of paperwork stamped and signed.

The single market was a tremendous boost to UK small business, probably providing the most lucrative domestic market in the world.

Then the uninformed decided to go back to the way it was.

AI Overview

UK small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have faced significant declines, challenges, and reduced competitiveness since Brexit, driven by increased trade barriers, compliance costs, and labor shortages.

Studies show product-focused SMEs were disproportionately affected, with food and drink exports to the EU dropping by 34% in the immediate aftermath.

AI is not the be all and end all, it can lie even better then MPs although it has not had so much practice.

On 3/18/2026 at 8:05 PM, Surasak said:

AI is not the be all and end all, it can lie even better then MPs although it has not had so much practice.

Spoken like a true brexiteer, and obviously you think the horse lies through it's teeth as well. The reluctance to post the real figures is noted.

"Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) ^{[footnote 2]}, including the self-employed, are the backbone of the UK economy. With 5.5 million firms making up 99.8% of the business population, they provide 60% of private sector jobs and generate over £2.8 trillion in turnover ^{[footnote 3]}. Our entrepreneurs and businesses are a source of incredible passion, ideas and agility. They drive growth through innovation, competition and job creation"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/backing-your-business-our-plan-for-small-and-medium-sized-businesses/backing-your-business-our-plan-for-small-and-medium-sized-businesses-web-version