Michael Marra’s call for the UK to rejoin the European Union challenges the premise of Labour’s narrower reset: can individual agreements deliver enough economic benefit, or should membership itself be the destination?

The Scottish Labour leader wants rejoining to become a “long-term objective” for the whole country. Speaking to party supporters in Edinburgh on Tuesday, he said breaking down barriers would help businesses grow, attract investment and create better-paid jobs. He argued that it could also lower prices and generate more money for public services. These are promised benefits, not demonstrated outcomes of an agreed return.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham is pursuing specific agreements instead. He is expected in Brussels next week to sign deals addressing food and farming trade barriers, emissions trading and reciprocal opportunities for young people to work, live and study. Marra accepts that his ambition goes further.

The strongest case for membership is that the destination shapes the policy. Removing selected obstacles leaves businesses facing those that remain. Separate negotiations could improve particular sectors without resolving wider constraints on trade and investment. If those constraints hold back growth, membership deserves examination as an economic strategy rather than dismissal because negotiations would be difficult.

Marra’s appeal for “solidarity, not separation” also makes a constitutional argument. His route back into Europe is for the whole UK, placing Scotland’s economic interests within a shared project rather than treating European integration and the UK’s continued union as incompatible.

The strongest objection concerns terms, not ambition. Marra acknowledges “serious questions” about currency and borders. A desirable destination does not establish that the available settlement would be acceptable. Without answers, the promised gains cannot be weighed properly against the obligations and adjustments involved. Targeted agreements offer identifiable improvements without committing the country to that larger bargain.

This objection narrows Marra’s case but does not defeat it. A long-term objective need not mean accepting membership at any price. Investigating a route back can proceed alongside immediate agreements. His assertion that “difficult is not the same as impossible” justifies considering membership; it does not prove that every possible offer would be worth accepting.

Both approaches therefore owe an answer. Marra must connect his economic promise to acceptable membership terms. Burnham’s strategy must demonstrate how much friction its agreements remove, rather than treating signatures as sufficient evidence of success. Uncertainty about rejoining is a reason to scrutinise the bargain. It is not, by itself, a reason to make partial repair the permanent destination.