Sadiq Khan says Brexit will be reversed in his lifetime

Sadiq Khan has predicted Brexit will be reversed “in my lifetime” as he urged the government to be bolder about rebuilding Britain’s relationship with the European Union.

The London mayor made the comments in an interview reported over the weekend, saying his “ultimate goal” is for the UK to rejoin the EU and that he wants Britain to move towards the single market and a customs union. His intervention lands at a sensitive moment for Labour, which has been talking up closer cooperation with Brussels while repeatedly ruling out rejoining the EU’s core structures.

Khan’s remarks also come as public opinion continues to shift. A recent YouGov poll reported in early January suggested half of British voters would now choose to rejoin the EU, with around a third preferring to stay out.

What Khan is really calling for

Khan has long been one of Labour’s most openly pro-European senior figures. After the referendum, he argued that London would be hit particularly hard by the UK’s departure because of its reliance on services, talent and international investment. In recent years, he has described Brexit as not working and has repeatedly pushed for practical steps that reduce friction for businesses and travellers.

This time, the mayor went further by framing rejoining as an end point rather than a distant hypothetical. The significance is political as much as policy-driven: senior Labour figures have generally avoided language that sounds like “rejoin”, partly because of the electoral scars of the 2016 vote and partly because of the trade-offs involved in returning to EU structures.

Khan’s comments therefore read as an attempt to reset the Overton window inside Labour: accept that rejoining is not imminent, but treat it as a credible long-term direction rather than a taboo.

Labour’s current red lines on Europe

For now, the government’s position remains firm. Labour has signalled it wants a warmer, more cooperative relationship with the EU, but it has ruled out rejoining the single market and the customs union in this parliament. That stance is reflected in parliamentary briefings which note the government is seeking closer ties while explicitly keeping those red lines in place.

That creates an obvious tension with Khan’s preferred route. Joining a customs union would constrain the UK’s ability to strike independent trade deals, and re-entering the single market would typically require acceptance of shared rules and enforcement mechanisms. Those are not technical footnotes; they are the core political arguments that shaped the referendum and the years of negotiation that followed.

Still, there is space between “rejoin everything” and “do nothing”. Ministers have increasingly emphasised targeted cooperation, particularly on trade facilitation, research links and security coordination. That incremental approach is partly about avoiding another all-consuming national row, and partly about the reality that any major structural change would require a fresh democratic mandate.

Why the timing matters now

Khan’s intervention comes amid renewed movement in UK–EU contacts and a wider sense that geopolitics has shifted. European capitals are more focused on collective security, supply chains and economic resilience than they were in the years immediately after Brexit. That doesn’t automatically translate into an easier path back, but it does change the context: cooperation is less of a “nice to have” and more of a strategic necessity.

Domestically, the debate has also cooled in tone, even if the underlying identity arguments remain. Research has suggested Brexit has become less central to day-to-day political debate while continuing to shape how voters think about competence, national direction and trust.

And crucially, public attitudes appear to be moving. The YouGov figures reported in January are not the only poll to suggest “rejoin” has become more popular than “stay out”, but they are politically potent because they give pro-Europe voices a simple headline number to point at.

What “reversing Brexit” could mean in practice

When politicians talk about “reversing Brexit”, they often mean very different things. In reality, there are several potential pathways, ranging from modest to transformative.

One route is a sequence of practical agreements that reduce friction without formally rejoining core EU structures: mutual recognition in specific sectors, enhanced mobility schemes for young people, expanded data adequacy arrangements, or deeper participation in EU science and research frameworks.

A second route is partial reintegration, such as a customs union agreement designed to cut paperwork and border checks for goods. That would likely ease some pressure on exporters and supply chains, but it would come with constraints and would not solve every problem-particularly for services, where the UK economy is largest.

A third route is full rejoining. That would be a generational political project requiring years of negotiation and, almost certainly, a referendum or a general election explicitly fought on that promise. Even supporters of rejoining generally accept that it is not realistic in the short term.

Khan’s argument is essentially that Britain should stop pretending the destination is off-limits, even if the road is long.

The political risks for Labour

For Labour, there is an obvious calculation. Lean too far into rejoin rhetoric and it risks reigniting cultural conflict, handing opponents an easy attack line, and alienating voters in parts of the country where Brexit remains emotionally charged.

But stay too cautious and Labour risks looking timid, especially if economic arguments about trade friction and investment continue to resonate. Khan’s comments attempt to pull Labour towards a more assertive, pro-European posture without requiring the government to change policy overnight.

There is also a London-versus-rest-of-country dynamic. Khan speaks for a city that voted strongly to remain and still feels the economic and cultural case for EU closeness more intensely. National leaders, by contrast, must balance a broader coalition.

What happens next

In the near term, the government is unlikely to adopt Khan’s explicit “rejoin” framing. Its stated position remains focused on closer cooperation while keeping clear red lines around the single market and customs union.

But Khan’s comments add pressure in two ways. First, they encourage pro-European Labour figures to speak more openly, especially if polling continues to suggest public opinion is shifting. Second, they normalise the idea that Brexit is not a settled destination forever, even if the next steps are gradual and pragmatic.

Whether Brexit is “reversed” in Khan’s lifetime will depend less on a single interview and more on slow-moving forces: economic performance, generational change, EU politics, and whether any UK government is willing to seek a fresh mandate for a fundamentally different relationship. For now, Khan has put a clear marker down-one that Labour will find hard to ignore as it tries to define what a “reset” with Europe actually means.

You may also like: How the ECHR works and why it matters in Britain