Brexit failed, America untrustworthy; the horizon returns to beyond-Manica

The words uttered by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan mark a political shift that goes far beyond the contingency. It is not just a criticism of American foreign policy, but a questioning of the entire strategic positioning of the United Kingdom: ‘the United States is no longer a reliable ally, and the British future ,’ Khan argues, ‘ can only come through a return to Europe‘.

A statement that, in terms of its radicality and timing, breaks a political taboo still very strong after Brexit and opens up a scenario that until recently would have been considered unthinkable: rejoining theEuropean Union without a new referendum.

The end of the Atlantic illusion

For decades, the UK built its foreign policy on a delicate balance between Europe and the US, the so-called special relationship.
But today that balance has shifted and Kahn is the first to glimpse that that breach may become a door.
Swings in US politics, especially under Donald Trump‘s leadership, have shaken confidence in an alliance that seemed untouchable. From trade tensions to ambiguities over European security, to more recent crises and the near certainty that Washington has become an unpredictable partner.
For London, which had also envisioned Brexit as a way to strengthen ties with the US, this is a strategic reversal.

Brexit: the numbers of a failure

Years after leaving theEuropean Union, official figures tell a very different reality from the one promised by Leave supporters, including Nigel Farage.
According to analysis by theOffice for Budget Responsibility, British trade has fallen by an estimated 15 per cent over the long term compared to a scenario without Brexit; productivity has suffered from the loss of integration in the single market; foreign investment has slowed significantly.

A study by the London School of Economics also pointed to rising import costs, reduced competitiveness of companies and shrinking trade especially in the manufacturing sectors.
Also in terms of employment, the end of free movement has resulted in structural shortages in key sectors such as healthcare, logistics and agriculture.
The overall result is a morefragile economy, less dynamic and more exposed to global shocks.

An island without shores

The problem today is not just economic but strategic. Today, the United Kingdom finds itself outside theEuropean Union, with a less solid relationship with the United States and lacking a clear geopolitical positioning.
It is into this void that Khan‘s proposal, which is not just economic but existential, fits: return to Europe to avoid being squeezed between large blocs.

The rise of Farage and the political vacuum

The radical nature of Khan ‘s position should also be read in the light of the domestic context.
The advance of Nigel Farage and his Reform UK party is now a major threat to the British political balance, and it also confirms a global psycho-political phenomenon: the amnesia of voters towards those who first lead them to the abyss and then propose to save them.
Farage continues to ride a sovereignist and anti-European narrative, fuelled by economic discontent – paradoxically the child of the illusion Farage himself told in support of Brexit – and distrust in institutions.

In the face of this advance, the Conservatives appear to be at an all-time low, lacking a clear line and authoritative leadership, while Labour, led by Keir Starmer, struggles to offer a strong vision, often being perceived as cautious to the point of inconsistency.
In this scenario, Khan ‘s proposal stands out because it breaks the defensive logic and tries to offer a clear political direction.

The return to Europe as a strategic proposal

A possible return of the United Kingdom to theEuropean Union would have profound implications on both the economic and security fronts.
According to various analyses by the European Commission and independent think-tanks, a return to the single market would reduce trade barriers, increase foreign investment and boost British competitiveness.
On the security side, perhaps the most relevant aspect concerns defence.
The UK is a major European military power, a strategic intelligence and logistics hub and a nuclear power.
Its return would significantly strengthen Europe’s ability to build an autonomous defence, especially in a context where dependence on the United States appears increasingly uncertain.
At the same time, London would benefit from greater integration into continental security systems.

A historic crossroads

Sadiq Khan ‘s statements are not just a political provocation. They are the signal of a historic shift.
The United Kingdom is now at a crossroads: continue to pursue an isolated, increasingly fragile sovereignty, or redefine its role by returning to the centre of the European project.
For years, the Brexit debate has been dominated by nostalgia or identity defence.
Today, however, a different phase is opening up: that of pragmatic evaluation, in the UK as well as in Iceland, right up to Canada where the debate on a rapprochement with theEuropean Union is no longer confined to analysts.

If the US is no longer a stable reference point and if Brexit has weakened the British economic system, then the question becomes inevitable: can the UK afford to stand alone?

The answer, in Khan‘s words, is clear.
And precisely for this reason, in the current political landscape, it also appears as the only proposal capable of truly redefining the future of the country.

The silent variable: the new royal family

In this delicate historical transition, there is an actor that traditionally remains in the background but could play a not insignificant role: the British monarchy.
In contrast to the strictly prudent line maintained for decades by Elizabeth II, the new generation of the royal family seems to show a more pronounced sensitivity, an ‘interventionist’ spirit towards major global issues.
Charles III, already as Prince of Wales, has built an international reputation as a figure attentive to environmental issues, sustainability and dialogue between cultures. A posture that, while formally remaining within constitutional limits, has often bordered on a form of ‘soft’ interventionism, made up of symbolic but significant stances.

Similarly, Prince William represents a generation even more exposed to and aware of global dynamics: from climate issues to international security, and his figure embodies an idea of monarchy less distant and more connected to contemporary challenges.
In a context in which the United Kingdom is called upon to redefine its strategic position – between the progressive cooling of the relationship with the United States and the possible rapprochement withEurope – the monarchy could play a function of symbolic stabilisation and cultural orientation.
Not through direct intervention in the political debate – which would remain incompatible with the constitutional role – but through diplomatic language, the building of international relations and the representation of a long-term vision.

In other words, while politics appears to be fragmented between caution and radicalisation, the ‘new’ royal family could help to delineate a horizon of meaning, accompanying – if only symbolically – an eventual return of the United Kingdom to the centre of the European project.
A subtle role, but not an irrelevant one. Because in transitional phases, it is often not only political decisions that count, but also the shared narratives that allow a country to recognise itself in a new direction.