Nearly half of voters in the United Kingdom support rejoining the European Union, according to a survey released as Prime Minister Andy Burnham reviews the country’s options for its long-term relationship with the bloc.

The Messina Group polled 11,461 people between 12 and 24 September. It found that 49 per cent supported EU membership and 28.5 per cent opposed it. The findings were weighted by respondents’ votes in the 2016 referendum, according to the survey results.

Several other options for closer cooperation also received more support than opposition. Retaining the current relationship while removing as many trade barriers as possible was backed by 48.2 per cent, with 20.9 per cent against. A customs union was supported by 47.1 per cent and opposed by 20.7 per cent.

Joining the single market was supported by 45.1 per cent, while 45.5 per cent backed associate membership. The existing relationship without further changes received 42 per cent support. Moving further away from the EU was the least popular option tested: 27.9 per cent supported it and 41.2 per cent opposed it.

The figures show support for a range of possible arrangements, but do not establish agreement on what Britain should seek or on the terms it should accept.

On timing, 25.9 per cent said the UK should rejoin immediately, 22.9 per cent favoured doing so within three years and 8.4 per cent within the next decade. A further 23 per cent said they did not want closer relations with the EU.

Respondents were also asked whether leaving the bloc had been the right decision. Some 52.4 per cent said it was wrong, compared with 29.7 per cent who said it was right; 17.9 per cent were undecided. Asked whether Brexit had been a success or failure, 54.9 per cent called it a failure and 12.2 per cent a success. Nearly a quarter, 23.2 per cent, said neither, while 9.7 per cent did not know.

The poll tested the possible electoral effects of different Labour positions on Europe. It found that scenarios involving closer ties could increase the party’s vote share by between 4.3 and 7.4 percentage points. The largest potential rise was linked to a proposal for a referendum in which Burnham campaigned for Britain to rejoin.

Burnham has said Labour will review the choices available, including keeping current arrangements, joining a customs union, returning to the single market or seeking EU membership. He plans to set out the options around the next UK-EU summit, expected in November. In recent remarks, he said the government would assess “what is doable” and the “pros and cons” of each option.

The review marks a shift from Labour’s 2024 election manifesto, which ruled out rejoining the EU, single market or customs union. Burnham has not proposed an immediate application or referendum. A UK bid for membership would require negotiations with the EU and unanimous agreement from member states.

The question of whether a referendum should come first also remains open. Almost a third of respondents said a vote would be needed before rejoining. More than one in six thought a general-election mandate would be sufficient, with a similar proportion saying Parliament could make the decision.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez have said the EU would welcome a British return. Their comments followed Burnham’s call for a review of Britain’s options, as EU Today reported this week. Earlier EU Today coverage also examined British and EU public support for a possible return.

France and Spain have openly welcomed the prospect of Britain rejoining the European Union after British Prime Minister Andy Burnham put full membership back among the options for the country’s long-term relationship with Europe.

French President Emmanuel Macron and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez addressed the question during Macron’s state visit to Spain on Wednesday, 30 September. Asked whether Britain could return under Burnham, Macron responded in English: “Welcome back.” He added that a British decision to move in that direction would be good news for both Britain and Europe.

Sánchez was similarly positive, saying Spain would “open our arms” if Britain sought to return.

Their comments followed Burnham’s intervention at the Labour Party conference and subsequent interviews in which he argued that Britain should reconsider the full range of options for its future relationship with the EU.

Those could include remaining under the present post-Brexit arrangements, returning to the customs union or single market, or ultimately “going all the way” and applying for EU membership again.

The remarks extend a debate which had already been developing since Burnham entered Downing Street. In August, EU Today reported that he had told European Council President António Costa that Britain should be “bolder” in rebuilding relations with Brussels.

More recently, the argument has moved from diplomatic language to practical economic questions. Burnham has been pressing Brussels to ensure British companies are not disadvantaged by the EU’s emerging industrial preference rules, with access to the proposed “Made in Europe” framework becoming one of the principal issues ahead of the next EU-UK summit.

Macron nevertheless made clear in Madrid that closer relations could not become a system under which Britain selected individual advantages of EU membership while remaining outside the corresponding obligations.

“You cannot pick and choose among the Union’s freedoms,” he said during the joint press conference with Sánchez.

That question dominated much of the Brexit negotiation after the 2016 referendum. Access to the single market is built around the free movement of goods, services, capital and people, while participation also entails accepting common rules and enforcement mechanisms.

A British application to rejoin would be a separate and considerably larger process. Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, Britain would have to apply for membership and secure unanimous agreement from the existing member states before negotiations could be completed.

A returning Britain could not assume that the special arrangements it held before Brexit would automatically be restored. The UK previously had an opt-out from the euro, remained outside the Schengen passport-free area and benefited from a budget rebate.

Any future terms would have to be negotiated.

Public opinion has also changed since the referendum. A YouGov poll in June found 55 per cent of Britons supported rejoining the EU and 34 per cent opposed it, although support falls when respondents are asked about specific membership conditions.

That shift is not limited to Britain. Polling examined by EU Today earlier this year found substantial support across EU member states for a British return.

For the moment, however, Burnham is not proposing an immediate membership application or referendum.

The next test will be the UK-EU summit expected in November. The meeting was originally planned for July but was postponed following Keir Starmer’s resignation, with EU Today reporting at the time that the political transition in London had complicated preparations.

Burnham wants the summit to advance negotiations on industry, trade and migration and has said he intends to use the period around the meeting to set out the longer-term options available to Britain.

The immediate negotiations are therefore likely to focus on economic integration rather than membership.

Greater access to European markets would almost certainly involve greater regulatory alignment. The political argument in Britain will concern how far the country is prepared to accept common European rules in return for reducing barriers created by Brexit.

Macron and Sánchez have now made clear that, if the discussion eventually moves beyond closer economic cooperation towards membership itself, two of the EU’s largest states would welcome it.

The UK’s trade ambitions are clear: open new markets, reduce border friction, and make it genuinely easier for small businesses to compete globally. The government’s 2025 Trade Strategy frames this as a growth priority. Yet the data tells a more sobering story, write Jose Puyana and Tom Harding.

UK goods exports to the EU have fallen by £27 billion since Brexit. Exports remain roughly 18% below pre-2019 levels. And around one in seven UK businesses have stopped trading with the EU altogether.

Large-scale surveys from the Federation of Small Businesses and British Chambers of Commerce consistently cite customs processes and compliance complexity as the leading barriers for SMEs. But surveys don’t fully capture the emotional texture of what traders describe: a persistent, low-level anxiety about whether a detail has been missed, whether the code is right, whether the rules have quietly changed since last time.

The traders understand their products, their customers, and their commercial realities. What leaves them uneasy is the web of rules, requirements, and systems governing the movement of goods across a border. We call this mindset the Nervous Trader.

The fear of getting it wrong

Consider a small business importing animal-derived products: the origin of materials, their treatment, and finishing processes can all shift how a shipment must be declared. A detail that seems minor to an outsider - whether a skin has been treated, how a component has been finished - can change the commodity code entirely. Get it wrong, and products are delayed or blocked at the border. Unexpected duties land, turning a profitable shipment into a loss. Time is consumed by questions from freight forwarders and internal scrutiny that the business cannot afford.

For a clothing importer shipping technical apparel from multiple countries, the same anxiety plays out at scale. Every declaration carries the nagging worry of a missed detail or overlooked cost. And for a manufacturer exporting specialist components, the risk doesn’t just lie with a single shipment - it scales with volume. As the business grows, so does the exposure. One overlooked requirement can have knock-on effects across the whole operation.

Rules without a map

What these businesses share is not inexperience. It is the absence of certainty. Trade is inherently consequential - financial and reputational stakes are real. But the systems around it do remarkably little to reduce the sense of exposure. Nervousness is rational in an ambiguous environment. The question is why we continue to design ambiguity into the experience.

International trade is inherently complex. Nobody who works in it would claim otherwise. The rules are numerous, the requirements specific, and the consequences of error real. Traders understand this. None of the businesses we spoke to expected the process to be simple.

What they experience, however, is complexity without context - rules and requirements presented without enough orientation to be useful. Government guidance is often comprehensive and technically accurate. The information assumes a level of prior knowledge that most small business operators simply don’t have time to develop.

More critically, guidance is almost always written around policy rather than around the person trying to follow it. That gap between what guidance says and what a trader actually needs to know in a given moment is where confidence breaks down.

When traders are nervous and the guidance around them fails to build confidence, they find other ways to manage the risk. They defer. They delegate. They pay someone else to carry the uncertainty; they were never given the tools to handle themselves.

It is a rational response to an inadequate system. The more revealing data point, though, is the informal workarounds. Traders describe turning to AI tools, online forums, and third-party platforms to fill the gap that official guidance leaves. Not because those sources are more authoritative, but because they are faster, more conversational, and more willing to engage with the specific question being asked rather than the general rule that may or may not apply.

Designing for confidence, not just compliance

If our digital services don’t actively build confidence and help manage the risks associated with trade compliance, other ecosystems will fill that gap. Intermediaries become the only translators of complexity, while traders never fully learn the language.

Trade is never static. For UK businesses, the pace of change over the past decade has been relentless: Brexit reshaping EU relationships, US tariff policy shifting unpredictably, new regulatory requirements emerging as new markets are entered. The environment that small traders are navigating today bears little resemblance to the one they trained themselves on five years ago.

The consequences are visible. Businesses that built strong European revenue streams have watched them erode as post-Brexit duties and friction increased. What had been a reliable, profitable channel became uncertain, then marginal, then unviable. The challenge wasn’t that traders didn’t see change coming - most did. The challenge was that the systems around them provided no clear guidance on what to do about it.

When those questions arise constantly, in a domain that already feels high-risk and poorly signposted, the fear of making mistakes doesn’t simply persist; it compounds. And that compounding weight is what drives traders towards avoidance - towards stepping back from unfamiliar routes, delaying entry into new markets, and, at worst, withdrawing from international trade altogether.

Change is inevitable in trade. But adaptation should not require heroic effort on the part of the trader. When our systems don’t communicate change in accessible, context-relevant ways, they transform something manageable into something exhausting.

Addressing this requires more than incremental improvements to individual services. It requires a different frame. In practical terms, it means translating policy into language that traders can act on. It means providing reassurance at the moments it is most needed, not just information. It means improving relevance - helping traders quickly understand what applies to their situation rather than leaving them to extract that signal from comprehensive but impersonal guidance. And it means fragmented government services beginning to work more deliberately across boundaries, acknowledging their shared users, shared challenges, and shared outcomes.

Confidence should be treated as a primary, measurable outcome of good service design in trade. Not a soft aspiration, but a design specification. If a service leaves traders more uncertain than when they arrived, something has gone wrong - regardless of whether the information was technically accurate.

The role of digital and service design is not to eliminate the complexity of international trade. It is to prevent that complexity from being amplified by the experiences built around it. Trade will always carry risk. The question is whether we design services that help traders manage that risk clearly, or services that make them feel exposed to it at every turn.