Nick Thomas-Symonds is a biographer of Labour Titans and now he is at the heart of a historic drama (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)
Britain’s top negotiator with the European Union makes no secret of the fact that he voted Remain in the 2016 referendum – but pro-EU zealots who want to enlist his help in reversing Brexit are wasting their time.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, a 45-year-old father of three, cannot see a referendum on rejoining the bloc taking place while he is alive. And as the MP for a Labour heartland seat where six out of 10 voters backed Brexit, he understands the deep desire for change which drove Britons to cut the cord with Brussels.
He represents the South Wales constituency of Torfaen at a time when Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is working to oust Labour from its traditional power bases, and polling suggests Sir Keir Starmer’s party is heading for disaster in the May Welsh Parliament elections.
There has never been a non-Labour First Minister in the Cardiff parliament and it has been the biggest party in Wales in every Westminster election for more than a century. But a More In Common poll released on Friday puts Reform in first place (31%), ahead of pro-independence Plaid Cymru (24%). This comes as Labour in Westminster reels at the Mandelson-Epstein scandal and there is rampant speculation about the Prime Minister’s future.
In this moment of turmoil for Labour, Mr Thomas-Symonds is in the engine room of the Government at the Cabinet Office. And as the minister responsible for EU relations, Brexiteers watch with deep suspicion as he works to reset Britain’s relationship with Brussels.
He is emphatic there is no establishment plot to unravel Brexit.
“There 100% is not,” he says.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
When asked if he thinks there will be a referendum on rejoining the EU he slams the door on that option.
“I don’t see that,” he says.
What he does see is a nation that voted “very firmly for change” and is today burdened by high living costs.
He was born in the constituency and grew up in Blaenavon, a town once famed for its ironworks and its Big Pit – where tourists can today go underground to get a glimpse of a vanished coal industry.
He argues his strategy of “ruthless pragmatism” in EU negotiations can deliver true cost of living benefits for the people in now represents in Westminster.
“My constituents [were] never telling me they were voting Brexit because they wanted to pay more for their food… Nor were they voting for Brexit to strangle businesses in red tape,” he says.
Nick-Thomas Symonds has gone on a journey from Blaenavon to the Cabinet Office (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)
A top goal is nailing down a food and drink agreement to lower the expense of putting food on the table.
“This can make a difference,” he insists. “It is not about unravelling Brexit. It’s about delivering on that mandate we have from the 2024 manifesto.”
He is clear about the red lines in that manifesto.
“We will not go back to the single market, the customs union [or] freedom of movement,” he says. “But we will build a closer UK-EU relationship that is in the national interest…
“That is what drives me, and that is exactly what I am doing with the diplomatic work week by week.”
He has written biographies of Labour giants Clement Attlee, Aneurin Bevan and Harold Wilson. He respects leaders who win power and then use it to change Britain.
“You think of Harold Wilson,” he says, “who once said that he who rejects change is the architect of decay. And we, this Government, embrace change.”
The latest UK-wide Techne poll puts Labour on just 17%, behind the Conservatives (19%) and Reform on (30%).
“I understand your readers’ frustration that they want to see change delivered more quickly, he says. “But what I say to them is, we are – we will be – straining every sinew to deliver that change for them.”
He dismisses suggestions that “Farage clauses” are being inserted into EU deals which would make it prohibitively expensive for a future UK Government to scrap the arrangements.
“All international agreements as standard have particular exit clauses,” he says. That’s just standard. That’s nothing that’s peculiar to particular negotiations here.”
Come the next general election, when Reform UK will target Brexit-votings seats such as his, he says he will welcome the chance to defend the deals he believes will bring down the cost of living.
“If they want to go into the next election saying that they want to put all those costs back, that they want to put all that red tape back on businesses, [that] they want to risk energy bills going up, food bills going up – that is a debate I will welcome with them.”
He is just as robust when defending Britain’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“If Britain were to leave the ECHR, it would severely reduce our ability to get the agreements that we need to deal with illegal migration,” he says, insisting he shares readers’ concerns about small boat arrivals.
“We are determined to tackle it and to smash the gangs.”
Nick Thomas-Symonds greets EU Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maros Sefcovic (Image: PA)
Mr Thomas-Symonds lives in Abersychan – the former hometown of pioneering Labour Home Secretary Roy Jenkins – with his wife Rebecca, daughters Matilda and Florence, and son William. But even in Opposition he was dispatched across Europe to build relations with decision-makers.
He has no time for “megaphone diplomacy” but has introduced European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič to the pleasures of Wales’ Penderyn whisky.
“I negotiate extremely hard for the United Kingdom; he negotiates hard for the EU, and that’s exactly how it should be,” he says.
The talks have unfolded with conflict raging in Ukraine and the NATO alliance with the United States looking more vulnerable than at any time in its history.
The Torfaen MP sees this as a “perilous moment for Europe” and admits: “I never thought in my lifetime that I would see a land war back on the European continent”.
He says there is “tremendous respect” for Sir Keir’s work with both European leaders and the US President – and he is adamant this is not the time for the UK to change prime ministers.
“Look,” he says. “I’ve known Keir Starmer for many years. He is a fundamentally decent man of integrity who is absolutely determined to deliver for the British people.
“Now is not the time to get distracted, turning in on ourselves, plunging the country into instability. This is not the moment to do that.
“It is time to get on, focus, deliver, and that’s exactly the message that I was saying to colleagues in recent days.”
Nick-Thomas Symonds and Sir Keir Starmer, two barristers, have known each other for years (Image: PA)
Mr Thomas-Symonds went to the local Catholic high school in Pontypool – his wife was his sixth form girlfriend – and he won a place at Oxford where he gained a First in philosophy, politics and economics. He became a tutor at the university and also qualified as a barrister before arriving in Westminster at the age of 34.
His passion for politics was sparked by his grandmother, Olwyn, who fulfilled her ambition to become a nurse at the age of 56. He enjoyed debating with her, but she convinced him that talk must be matched with action.
He remembers discussing the challenges facing local young people as industrial jobs vanished when she delivered a sentence that sent him on his journey from Blaenavon to the Cabinet Office: “The only way you change it is to go into politics.”
“I’ve never regretted taking her advice,” he says.
Nick Thomas-Symonds has studied election-winning Labour leader Harold Wilson (Image: -)
Huge Blow for EU-Zealots as Top UK Negotiator Issues Four-Word Statement on Brexit Reversal
Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the European Union has once again become a major political dividing line, with arguments over closer alignment, the customs union and the possibility of reversing Brexit returning to the centre of Westminster debate.
For supporters of Brexit, the central message remains straightforward: Britain has left the European Union and should continue to operate as an independent country. For those who favour closer integration, the argument is that Britain can reduce some of the economic and practical difficulties associated with Brexit by rebuilding stronger links with its largest neighbouring trading bloc.
The government’s current approach sits somewhere between those positions.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has repeatedly said that Britain will not rejoin the EU, the single market or the customs union, while simultaneously seeking a closer relationship with European partners in areas such as trade, defence and security.
That distinction has become increasingly important as discussions over the UK’s future relationship with Brussels continue.
Brexit Is Not Being Formally Reversed
One of the most important facts in the current debate is that the government has not announced plans to reverse Brexit.
The United Kingdom formally left the European Union in 2020, and the government has not proposed rejoining the bloc.
In Parliament, Labour MPs have stressed that their objective is to improve Britain’s relationship with Europe rather than reopen the question of EU membership.
During a Commons debate on the UK’s relationship with the EU, Labour MP Stella Creasy stated explicitly that Brexit had happened and that she was not advocating rejoining. She argued instead for what she described as a “salvage operation” aimed at addressing problems associated with Britain’s post-Brexit arrangements.
That distinction is central to understanding the current political argument.
Closer cooperation with the EU is not necessarily the same thing as reversing Brexit.
The Government’s Red Lines
Starmer has established several important red lines for his government’s approach.
The government has said it will not rejoin the single market or customs union and will not restore the previous system of free movement.
Those commitments have been repeatedly cited by Conservative politicians seeking assurances that Labour will not gradually move Britain back towards EU membership.
In the Commons debate, Conservative MPs argued that closer alignment could eventually weaken the independence Britain gained through Brexit. Sarah Bool, Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire, questioned whether the government’s stated red lines were sufficiently clear and argued that some Labour politicians appeared to favour closer integration than the government officially acknowledged.
The disagreement therefore concerns not only what the government is doing today, but also where closer cooperation could eventually lead.
Why the Customs Union Has Become a Flashpoint
The customs union is one of the most controversial subjects in this debate.
Supporters argue that closer customs arrangements could reduce friction in UK-EU goods trade.
Opponents argue that joining the EU customs union would constrain Britain’s ability to conduct an independent trade policy.
The distinction is significant because Britain has negotiated trade agreements with countries outside the European Union since Brexit.
During a Lords debate in January 2026, Conservative peer Lord Moynihan argued that rejoining the EU customs union would require Britain to align its external tariffs with the EU and accept the bloc’s trade policy. He also argued that such a move would conflict with the principle of an independent British trade policy.
Supporters of closer EU alignment dispute the significance of those concerns and argue that the economic benefits of reducing trade barriers with Britain’s largest neighbouring market could outweigh the disadvantages.
That disagreement remains unresolved.
The Four-Word Message
The dramatic language surrounding the “four-word statement” reflects the wider political battle over whether Britain should move closer to the EU.
The underlying message from Brexit-supporting politicians has generally been that Brexit will not be reversed.
That position is consistent with the government’s formal red lines, even though Labour is seeking improvements in Britain’s relationship with Brussels.
The distinction between “reset” and “reversal” is therefore critical.
A reset can involve negotiating better cooperation without restoring EU membership.
A reversal would imply moving back towards the institutional arrangements that existed before Brexit.
The government says it is pursuing the first rather than the second.
Why Reform Is Watching Closely
Nigel Farage and Reform UK have a particularly strong interest in the debate.
Farage was one of the most prominent campaigners for Brexit and has consistently opposed moves that he believes would gradually bring Britain back under EU rules.
In the Lords debate, Farage was described as opposing the government’s EU reset and arguing that Reform would resist what it regards as concessions to Brussels.
For Reform, the distinction between cooperation and alignment is politically important.
The party can support cooperation with European countries on defence or security while opposing arrangements that require Britain to follow EU regulations or accept EU institutional oversight.
This allows Reform to argue that Britain can work closely with its European neighbours without surrendering the independence that Brexit was intended to provide.
Economic Arguments on Both Sides
The Brexit debate is ultimately about more than sovereignty.
It is also about economic performance.
Critics of Brexit argue that leaving the EU created additional barriers to trade and contributed to weaker economic performance.
Supporters counter that Britain has been able to negotiate independent trade agreements and develop economic relationships beyond Europe.
A January 2026 Lords debate illustrated how sharply those interpretations differ.
Some peers argued that Brexit had harmed growth and that closer alignment with the EU could provide economic benefits. Others argued that Britain’s economic performance should not simply be attributed to Brexit and pointed to the performance of other major European economies.
These competing interpretations demonstrate why claims about Brexit’s economic impact require careful examination rather than simple political slogans.
Public Opinion Has Also Changed
The political debate is taking place against a changing public mood.
Research published in the Journal of Common Market Studies found that the intense politicisation surrounding Brexit and the EU has declined substantially since the referendum period, although the issue remains capable of becoming politically important during periods of renewed controversy.
The study also found evidence of growing disengagement among some citizens, including a desire to move beyond the constant political conflict associated with Brexit.
That creates a challenge for politicians on both sides.
Those seeking closer European cooperation need to explain how their proposals would improve Britain’s practical relationship with the EU without reopening the divisive question of membership.
Brexit supporters, meanwhile, need to explain how Britain can maximise the benefits of independence while maintaining efficient trade and cooperation with its closest European neighbours.
The European Perspective
The EU also has its own interests.
Britain remains an important European economy and a major partner in areas such as security, defence, trade and intelligence.
At the same time, the EU has little reason to recreate the UK’s former membership arrangements without conditions.
Any significant change to the relationship would therefore involve negotiations.
That is why suggestions that Britain could simply reverse Brexit overlook the complexity of the process.
Rejoining the EU would require a completely different negotiation from negotiating individual agreements with the bloc.
The same applies to potential membership of the single market or customs union.
These are institutional arrangements with specific obligations rather than simple trade preferences.
Why the Language Matters
The use of a short, definitive statement is politically significant because Brexit supporters have long feared what they describe as “Brexit by stealth”.
Their concern is that Britain could formally remain outside the EU while gradually adopting more European rules.
Government ministers reject that interpretation.
They argue that closer cooperation is necessary because Britain and the EU are geographically connected, economically intertwined and facing shared security challenges.
The January 2026 Lords debate reflected precisely this tension. Some speakers argued that geopolitical developments made closer European cooperation increasingly necessary, while others warned against arrangements that could weaken Britain’s independent decision-making.
What Happens Next?
The immediate future is therefore likely to involve continued negotiations rather than a dramatic reversal.
The government wants improved cooperation with the EU in selected areas while maintaining its stated red lines.
Reform and Conservative politicians are likely to scrutinise any agreement for signs of regulatory alignment or commitments that could restrict Britain’s freedom of action.
Meanwhile, pro-European politicians are likely to continue arguing that Britain needs a substantially closer relationship with its largest neighbouring market.
The disagreement will therefore continue.
But the debate should distinguish three different possibilities.
The first is closer cooperation while remaining outside the EU.
The second is partial economic alignment, such as closer customs or regulatory arrangements.
The third is rejoining the European Union itself.
These are not interchangeable policies.
Conclusion
The latest controversy over Brexit demonstrates that Britain’s relationship with the European Union remains politically significant more than a decade after the 2016 referendum.
The government has not announced a plan to reverse Brexit. Instead, Labour has pursued a closer relationship with Brussels while maintaining commitments not to rejoin the EU, single market or customs union.
That position has not satisfied everyone.
Brexit supporters remain concerned that closer cooperation could eventually lead to deeper integration, while supporters of closer European ties argue that practical cooperation is necessary to address economic and geopolitical challenges.
For Nigel Farage and Reform UK, the issue provides an opportunity to reinforce their message that Britain should retain control over its laws, borders and trade policy.
For the government, the challenge is to demonstrate that it can improve Britain’s relationship with Europe without crossing its stated red lines.
And for voters, the important distinction is between cooperation with the EU and rejoining the EU.
Those are different political choices, with different economic, legal and constitutional consequences.
The debate over Brexit is therefore unlikely to disappear completely.
But the next stage will be determined not by slogans alone, but by the precise agreements Britain negotiates, the obligations they create and the practical effects they have on trade, security and national decision-making.