16th June 2023
The flaws and the errors of the case for Brexit are many and obvious, but those who oppose and want to reverse Brexit also have a problematic case.
In particular, and as this blog averred a couple of years ago, the notion that the United Kingdom can “re-join” the European Union is misconceived.
The United Kingdom is unlikely to “re-join” the European Union – if that is taken to mean that the United Kingdom will simply be able to step back and resume its role and position, almost as if nothing had happened.
Instead, those who support the United Kingdom being a member of the European Union will have to do is to make the case afresh.
And that will be difficult, as it will require a settled majority support for membership in our polity – and currently neither even the governing party nor official opposition support membership.
The occasion for this post is a fine article over at Byline by the academic Professor Jacob Öberg, which should be read by all who are interested in the topic.
He also has done a Twitter thread:
1) First and most importantly, the UK cannot simply re-join the EU – there is no specific “easier” pathway for a country that has left the EU to re-join. Under EU law the UK is now a third country so would have to reapply and undergo the whole accession procedure from scratch.
— Jacob Öberg (@Jacobbe79601492) June 16, 2023
His article is optimistic – the United Kingdom ever being a member state is not impossible:
But: it is optimism coupled with hard realism.
And he emphasises rightly that it is for the European Union to be satisfied that we are ready to be a member.
(Indeed, the idea that the European Union should let us back just because we ask them too is a form, of course, of British exceptionalism.)
*
My view, as you may know, is different – and it is one which is not shared with many, if anyone.
I would prefer the United Kingdom to formally remain outside the European Union while, over time, and in substance, evolving joint institutions, policies and rules in partnership with the European Union.
I think only such a close relationship over time, with the United Kingdom not technically being a member state, is sustainable and practical given the state of British politics.
As I type this, I can anticipate 101 responses to this position, and I am sure some will be set out below, but it is in my mind the only view that marries the need for closeness with paying tribute to the Brexit totem.
A totem which will be there, even if you despise it.
Pro-Europeans had over forty years to “win” the argument on European integration, and they failed when it mattered in 2016. And now with the enduring fact of the Brexit referendum, the overall argument is even less likely to be won – or at least be seen to be won.
Some may say that practicalities do not matter that much, and the case for outright European Union membership should be made, and that we should accept nothing less.
My worry is that is the counsel of perfection, and that it will miss the opportunity of actual closer relationships in the meantime.
Let Brexiters have their technical sovereignty, and let us also have a substantial and practical close association with the European Union, while nominally being outside.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.
> Pro-Europeans had over forty years to “win” the argument on European integration, and they failed when it mattered in 2016.
I would turn this on its head. Europhobes had been building campaign networks and securing funding sources for 4 decades after the argument on European integration had been won.
Although Europhiles did have some warning before the 2015 Conservative manifesto that there may be a referendum, the Europhile groups had to start from close to nothing in 2015, while Europhobe campaign networks and funding had been secured over the previous decades.
I don’t recall there being much of a Europhile campaign at all. The official Remain campaign was against the major European projects, promised to obstruct all future developments and was led by someone who has said he didn’t believe in the European project but felt it was financially worthwhile being in it.
One of the few thoughtful things Boris Johnson said was that if you are as strongly against the EU as the Remain campaign, then you are better off out.
To me, the term “rejon” is neutral and carries no implication that it is on the same terms. We were a member, if we were to become members again (on whatever terms) we would have “rejoined”. But I see the term troubles some people.
On the question of whether we should, it depends, of course on the wishes of the electorate in the future. I uderstand the reservations (in terms of domestic division) as things stand today. But in then end, if a majority wish to make an application, there will be one. That’s democracy. And who knows how many “brexiters” will be left by then.
If 52% is enough for the UK to leave the European Union with no idea of the form of Brexit the people voted for, then in principle should the same not be true for rejoining at least as far as the UK constituion is concerned?
As for the EU, they I am sure would hope to see a much larger majority than 52%. Perhaps we could even see the UK move to joining Schengen, allowing Ireland to do the same and the Eurozone. That should at least may it an order of magnitude harder for a 2% majority to impose the disaster that is Brexit.
“at least as far as the UK constituion is concerned?”
The Loch Ness monster of European law?
Often spoken about in a certain type of newspaper but never actually seen?
Any vote to rejoin should set a much higher threshold than a mere majority. We saw how that worked out for leaving and should be careful to ensure that such a disaster of confused policy is never repeated.
Leaving was confused because how hard the Brexit was to be wasn’t defined beforehand. Everyone had a different idea what Brexit meant.
Rejoining is a clearly understood aim. We’d have to sign all the treaties we withdrew from. There should be little confusion. 50%+1 was sufficient to leave. It should be sufficient to rejoin too.
The problem is that the UK joining the EU isn’t a simply a matter for the UK.
The EU have been very clear that they would not accept a narrow margin.
As far as I know, no specific threshold has been mentioned. But I couldn’t see under 60% being acceptable.
It wouldn’t be up to the EU to determine the majority required or even demand a referendum be held at all. If the UK again decided to have a consultative referendum, as in 2016, then saw a simple majority as being “the will of the people” who could possibly complain? It would only be fair.
Of course UK has to apply like everyone else. Therein lies the rub. It will have lost its valuable outs and that may make it very hard to justify joining; Schengen has immigration implications that are real, not the bigot kind; the UK unlike several major countries will not have a budget adjustment; the UK will be unable to avoid joining the Euro which is potentially very damaging economically (I say that as an EU fan).
Association is unlikely to be a solution. Industry is already falling out of EU supply chains and unless the UK is one again inside the SM or fully participating in SM rules, it is set for a long decline into low value added activity.
The best solution for now would be to join EEA. Inside Schengen and SM but not Euro and small budget contribution. Little role in policy and rule making but that may be a reasonable trade-off.
To quote the monk in “Princess Mononoke”, “You make that sound so easy!” It’s not clear that the EEA members will want a new member, especially one that will dominate the group by its size.
I wasnt judging ease. Joining the EU would also be hard but I suspect that EEA would be easier, especially if the EU supported it. EEA doesn’t do that much. It has a small say in rule making and pays a small amount to the EU. Otherwise it follows EU rules and has no say on eg foreign affairs. Given that I winder if UK’s size would such an issue. But in general any application is going to be hard.
All new memberships of the EEA including via the EFTA pillar must also be accepted by the EU Council by consensus – i.e. by all 27 members.
This consensus is very, very unlikely.
Lars :)
Disagree. The EU would be happy to see the UK back in some form, not least because it would be a huge blow to the still worrying populist anti-EU parties in several countries. Economically it would be a net plus.
EEA might be an elegant solution. It puts the UK under EU regulation and in the SM (SM is good for everyone) while keeping the UK out of policy making. ECB would be thankful of not having the headache of the UK inside the EZ – it brings huge financial sector risk and an economy completely out of sync with the German bloc and the Meds.
“The EU would be happy to see the UK back”
I suspect this is not true, given how there was no effort by EU to keep UK in. They are bored with our psychodrama and exceptionalism and opt-outs.
They did make great efforts to appease David Cameron concerns. They went as far as they could without treaty changes. Once the referendum was done and Article 50 invoked (plus May’s red lines) what could the EU possibly have done to persuade the UK to step back? The die was cast.
I think the EU would welcome the UK back if it was enthusiastic about rejoining. That would be likely since “Brexit regret” is quite the thing among Leave voters according to opinion polls. The pro Brexit arguments won’t work the same way if it came to a referendum. The UK has been there and done that already and we know what it was like.
It is worth reading Inside the Deal by Barnier. He explains how his side was very strongly against EEA membership. There were also representations from Norway against UK membership.
The concern was what you eluded to, namely that it would be democratically unacceptable for a country as big as the UK to have so little say in policy and rule making.
a bit theoretical. if the uk accepted the no choice EEA status, it’s hard to see why the EU would object. i can imagine the UK agreeing to additional restrictions to mollify Norway. I also think there is a world of difference between a negotiation with an exiting country and a re–entering one.
simon –
Think about how the EU works (consensus, unanimity).
Think about the core interests of every one of the current 27 members.
Think about how much the EU and its 27 members must create an EU path forward for an additional 6-10 member state. Fairness and equality are key here.
There is very little space for any new non standard membership like the EEA/SM.
Besides a new non standard UK membership gives the EU27 very little. The fear of the post Brexit economy in e.g. Ireland has been proven wrong – Ireland and NI is thriving.
It’s very unlikely the EU will negotiate anything other than a 100% full EU membership for the UK or the UK must stay with the current TCA and very small mitigations.
Lars :)
Let me add my criticism of the “joint institutions” approach:
Outside the EU, the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy will prevent the UK from being a reliable partner to the EU. Constitutionally it is incapable of making promises that it cannot just as easily break in a very specific and limited way.
During the UK’s EU membership, new constitutional rules evolved in cases such as Factortame and the Metric Martyrs case that limited parliamentary supremacy and allowed the UK to make promises that it would have to keep.
But now, post-Brexit, how can the UK give itself a constitution that would make such a deep EU-UK partnership possible? Labour won’t even vote to limit the power of the executive when it’s in opposition. So neither they nor the Tories will do so while either of them is in power.
how can the UK give itself a constitution that would make such a deep EU-UK partnership possible?
A written constitution might be useful?
Now that we have left the EU I reluctantly agree with you. The UK had a number of concessions whilst we were members that we would not get again and I suspect that it would be difficult to get a clear majority of our population to vote to rejoin on far less advantageous terms.
I assume to rejoin all the current members of the EU would have to approve our application. Quite an ask for a number of years at least.
On the other hand for economic and security reasons it also seems imperative that we should move closer to the EU. However neither the government or the opposition seem ready to make significant changes in course for the time being at least
There was a recent article in the ft, which as a contributing editor I’m sure you have read.
Basically the headline was ‘Europeans trust the EU more than their national governments’.
The UK, unfortunately, doesn’t have the choice ………….
Thank you for another thoughtful post, David. I share your admiration for Jacob’s article and series of tweets.
I can entirely see why you feel that ‘evolving joint institutions, policies and rules in partnership with the European Union’ would be the best position for the UK but I see little reason why the EU would want this. With further enlargement already in train, the EU needs consistency of rules; and the UK is simply not important enough to justify a special regime. There are still those who hope for free movement of goods while remaining outside the SM, but it seems to me unlikely that the EU would grant this. They have consistently said that the 4 freedoms cannot be divided; and why would the other member states in effect give the UK a free ride?
The fact that the UK has such difficulty accepting the loss of its privileged position is telling in itself: the UK views this as a transaction, trying to ‘buy’ the most advantageous market access in exchange for the least possible commitment, rather than as joining a community based on common values and a determination to promote peace and prosperity through all member states.
Unless there is a major shift in the UK’s position, it seems unlikely that the UK will rejoin in the foreseeable future so a free trade agreement is probably the best that can be done.
We don’t have to drag the ball and chain of a “Brexit totem” indefinitely, surely? The generation that drove the Brexit vote will be gone soon enough, and the decision will remembered as a huge strategic blunder (rather as my generation later deplored the failure to join in the 50s, which would have given the UK a much bigger say in shaping the institutions).
Mmm, definitely a two pipe problem. I think I agree with you, we will have to sit and wait a goodly time before the mood music is right. Gently gently.
I did think your sentence/para “I would prefer the United Kingdom to formally remain outside the European Union while, over time, and in substance, evolving joint institutions, policies and rules in partnership with the European Union.” had the rhythm and tone of Sir Humphrey himself – excellent.
Seems to me Brexit has not caused quite enough pain to make a re application attractive to the red top brigades and equally Brexit has done no good either. Which seems the worst of all possible worlds. Worse still we have a world where retrenching operations and looking after oneself seems the order of the day. I fear the attitude will be ‘you made your bed, now lie on it’.
Perhaps when it comes to writing a letter of application we could ask Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg nicely. If we wired him to the National Grid, on a good day, there might be enough power to jolt him into action.
I’m with the late Lord Fitt. One can neither eat nor exist on flags and sovereignty alone.
We had the best of it but chucked it all away for some rich types to get richer.
NI will likely (re)join by uniting with the rest of that island.
Scotland will likely (re)join as an Independent nation.
Wales will likely take longer.
England probably should do as you suggest.
I agree with that. The longer this … impasse … continues, the more likely the break-up of the UK. Demographics in Scotland alone suggest this, with young Scots increasingly pro-Indy, and old (Tory-Brexiter) unionists becoming extinct.
I see the best step for survival as the UK is to go for a Norway-style arrangement, which certain prominent Brexiters indicated was what they were looking at (lying though their teeth, of course).
I think with all due respect, this piece is very much looking at the situation through an “English” prism, certainly not a Northern Irish or Scottish one.
Having had some time and distance to reflect, I don’t think EU Member States would, or should, consider full membership for the UK again.
That’s not to say Brexit was not an appalling calamity for all involved – a very bad thing done very badly – but I think it exposed a fundamentally transactional approach to membership that has been a key part of all flavours of UK governments’ thinking for some time and was continued through the comically misjudged exit negotiations.
That’s not to say other Member States do not take transactional approaches, but most tend to do so on individual issues (e.g. the size of the budget) rather than the overall value of membership, and of the Union itself. The prevailing view is that this thing, this project, is important and worthwhile in itself, even as public and parties complain about this or that EU policy.
Of course there are many British former remainers (including me) who are fully committed to the idea of the EU, aside from any transactional gains, but I suspect that these committed believers are and will remain a small-ish subset of those who would support the UK becoming a member again. The rest of the support is, I think, not deep and will remain mostly based on this traditional transactional approach.
That was not enough to sustain membership. It should not be considered enough to achieve membership.
From the current starting point, I think the mostly transactional scenario you favour is also, regrettably, the furthest the EU should wish to go in its relationship with the UK.
Sadly, I agree with you that until there is a fundamental rethink in the U.K. we are unlikely to be able to contemplate joining the EU.
There is little in what David proposes that would seem to have real value to the EU.
It would, for example, create a great amount of work for a standing army of EU lawyers, diplomats and trade negotiators, who might be better deployed elsewhere.
I think the EU would want to know what they would get out of such protracted, never ending transactions.
What, for example, would be in it for importers and exporters in the Single Market?
The EU might be put in mind of cakeism, cherry picking, even some variation on a two speed EU.
Dominic Cummings puts much of the success of his Leave Campaign down to Boris Johnson persuading around 600,000 middle class voters that they might vote Leave for BRINO (Brexit In Name Only).
And I know it goes against the preferred narrative, but Leave, despite the forty years of anti EU propaganda in a lot of our media only narrowly won and, according to Cummings, that was partly because 600,000 savvy voters, the middle class are never anything but, were conned into believing the UK might have all the benefits of EU membership without being a member of the EU.
And someday, someone will write the story of how folk came to vote Leave, in particular.
For example, the instinctive anti-Tory voters who saw the Remain Campaign as led by a Tory; those who saw the Referendum as a referendum on the Government and voted accordingly; those who were confused about where Marmite Jeremy Corbyn stood, but opted to vote against what they thought he was supporting.
Cummings is adamant that had Nigel Farage been a higher profile campaigner then Johnson would never have won over those 600,000 key voters. Farage, like Corbyn being a very Marmite politician at the ballot box.
And then there are the Labour voters, who didn’t vote Remain in some areas, because Labour soft pedalled on campaigning and getting out the vote lest they be tarred in future elections as supporting membership of the EU.
Here in North Birmingham, Labour’s minimalist Remain Campaign helped to launch, I kid you not, the political career of Gary Sambrook.
Stephen Blackpool’s muddle springs to mind.
The European Coal and Steel Community developed out of a belief that countries that trade together in a common market grow together, and that high sounding principles were not enough if you wanted to towns and villages in France from being overrun for the fourth time in a century.
It was very much about the economic transactions when it came to persuading the voters of Western Europe of the value of building a community of nations.
“There is little in what David proposes that would seem to have real value to the EU.”
My response to this irksome point: https://davidallengreen.com/2023/06/life-after-brexit-and-exceptionalism/
I think this an excellent comment which cuts to the heart of the matter.
The strongest argument I heard for Brexit during the referendum campaign was from the Remain side who essentially argued that they didn’t believe in the European project but that we should stay in for the cash.
It’s like a marriage, if you are in it only for the money you really are better out of it.
Wise words from you again! Thanks
Good piece, I mostly agree. With a 52% Brexit vote we can be sure that voting bloc contained a wide range of views about what Brexit means. As such there can be no mandate for leaving the CU or giving up FoM. Cameron should have stayed in No. 10 and joined the EFTA. Such a thin majority deserved BrINO, and BrINO we should have..
The “joint institutions, policies and rules in partnership with the European Union” sounds rather like the Institutional Framework Arrangement that the Swiss recently rejected.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/696174/EPRS_BRI(2021)696174_EN.pdf
But while a similar agreement seems the most likely outcome in the medium term, it is surely strictly worse than EU membership since as non-members we would have little influence over the direction of the EU regulations which we would be dynamically aligning to.
Those that care about sovereignty should surely prefer full EU membership. I’ll happily take the practical economic benefits of closer alignment and a return of my right to live and work across Europe.
FWIW, your position is broadly similar to the one I have held ever since the result of the referendum was announced. The only significant difference is that I think we should actively consider joining EFTA, and help make that an effective partner and, where necessary, counterweight to the EU.
« Rejoin EFTA »
My father’s happiest days were as part of the Swiss delegation to EFTA in the mid 1960s. He always said that, by working with British friends, “we got things done”.
But:
1. EFTA is now a small organisation for small countries: CH, No, Liechtenstein & Iceland. The UK would completely unbalance things. The Norwegians have ‘expressed reservations’.
2. There is a little matter of trust: the UK was once expelled from EFTA – soon re-admitted. Who can trust a country that spews up the likes of Alexander Boris and Suella (who believes that breaking treaty obligations is not against UK domestic law)?
3. The Norwegians and Swiss both have their problems dealing with Brussels. Neither wants to get dragged into UK-EU squabbles as well.
EFTA has itself few relations with the EU.
CH has 120+ deals with the EU, which effectively works as membership of the SM (but not the CU), Schengen and …
The EU hates this unmanageable arrangement.
IS, LI, NO are members of the EEA (EFTA pillar), but membership here must be approved by the EU Council with consensus (which is very unlikely).
It is not just Little Englanders who believe in English exceptionalism:
“Psychologically” the United Kingdom outside the European Union is now better placed to burnish ties with the Americans than a country like France that remains inside the bloc, Henry Kissinger told The Economist. Whatever path the EU takes in terms of its own integration, it’s hard to imagine it doing so without cooperating with and pursuing parallel politics to the United States, he said. That, coupled with Britain’s long history of “special partnership” with the US, means that there is now “a great opportunity for it to act as a link between a unifying Europe and America.”
Kissinger seems to be living in the era when one had to book a long distance call between mainland Europe and North America with the UK as the Trans Atlantic switchboard.
Analogue in a world of Artificial Intelligence.
Many Labour and Tory politicians do still believe we will retain our traditional role as the bridge between Europe and the US.
In reality, we surely must reconcile ourselves to living in a cardboard box under the Trans Atlantic flyover with its off ramp for Ireland.
A sign surely of how retro our politics are becoming and how much political cross dressing is in vogue is Sir Keir’s insistence that Northern Ireland’s future is as part of the UK and that an elder of the Democratic Unionist Party, Baroness Arlene Foster could see her tribe working with Labour in a hung Parliament.
I wonder whether Henry was aware that such partner swapping was in contemplation?
Who knows, maybe the Conservative and Unionist Party will break the habit of centuries and finally do right by Ireland …
“You’ve no home planet, no influence, nothing! You’re just a pathetic bunch of tin soldiers skulking about the galaxy in an ancient spaceship!”
Or a Trident submarine?
A wholly sensible and pragmatic analysis, thank you.
But one thing we should have learned over the last few years, if we hadn’t already, is that one should never say never when analysing British politics.
And while we assume that the UK may change, we tend to assume that the EU is likely to stay unchanged. I wouldn’t like to try to predict how the EU may change over the coming years. Who knows?
The EU has already changed since Brexit.
If nothing else, Putin’s war has seen to that.
Isn’t the idea that the EU would want to have joint institutions, policies and rules in partnership with the UK also a form of British exceptionalism?
“Isn’t the idea that the EU would want to have joint institutions, policies and rules in partnership with the UK also a form of British exceptionalism?”
My response to this irksome point: https://davidallengreen.com/2023/06/life-after-brexit-and-exceptionalism/
Excellent post as always, thank you!
I am actually a little more optimistic in terms of rejoining (or joining again!). This is because – especially following the Select Committee on Privileges’ Report re Boris Johnson – more and more people will realise that the Brexit referendum was “unfair”, in that it was based on lies and deception. I believe that greater realisation, combined with an ailing economy, regulatory inconvenience, demographic changes and cost of living crisis, will lead to an increasing demand to “rejoin”.
My only concern would be if Euro membership was a requirement, as the loss of our fiat currency would lead to a very significant reduction in national economic control (see Greece).
Euro membership has been a requirement for new members for a long time. This kind of goes back to David’s point, doesn’t it? That the UK would be joining, not rejoining. It is difficult to imagine a country joining the EU today without adopting the Euro.
So will the UK ever want to join?
On the one hand I think you are right: The U.K. can‘t just re-join and get its former status back with rebates etc. On the other hand staying outside to worship the Brexit totem of „sovereignty“ and at the same time getting a closer relationship by having „shared institutions“ is problematic in two dimensions in my opinion: Shared institutions in the form Brexiters accept would mean equal power in these institutions, but that is compared to the economic weight of the EU and the importance of 27 EU nations compared to just 1 U.K. nation unthinkable.
Secondly sharing institutions by the U.K. joining the Singke Market and so easing the economic downsides of Brexit would make the U.K. more or less the ruletaker Brexiters argue about but also the rest of Britons despise so much. You can‘t please both sides of the argument. So Britons have to decide as all other nations: Do they want the advantages but also all the obligations of being an EU member or do they want to go it alone. A middle thing like the status of Norway is nothing arrogant Britons would ever accept.
There are plenty of countries with Association Agreements including the Ukraine and Turkey. But even such a small step would be too much in the current political climate, since it requires the adoption of a whole host of EU regulations adjudicated by the much hated ECJ. So what else is there? What we have, a Trade and Cooperation agreement, and trying to get that to work. BUT, to move beyond this simple and ineffective agreement would require the adoption of EU regulations and them being enshrined in statute in Westminster – and that is just not going to happen, not while I am alive – I am 69 on Monday.
The TCA is not simple and much better for the UK than anything Turkey, Ukraine or anyone else outside the SM has negotiated.
The SM+CU is nevertheless an order of magnitude better than the TCA in efficiency and in providing frictionless trade in goods and service.
This interesting and thought-provoking post has generated much worthwhile comment. However, the discussion does seem slightly complacent to me. The damage done by Brexit has scarcely begun. In fact, quite a bit of Brexit has yet to be fully implemented. It is hardly overstating the case to suggest that the UK faces economic ruin and political disintegration if Brexit on its current trajectory continues and is not reversed. To be fair, a couple of the comments acknowledge the possibility of disintegration, but they do seem quite sanguine about it. Unfortunately, to make matters worse, probably nothing short of full-blown membership from scratch may be on offer as an alternative. The scope for mitigating the damage done by the TCA through negotiations with the EU seems very limited. Hopes on that front are being deliberately dampened down on the EU side. At the same time. an application for membership, however couched, would get nowhere without a general consensus in the UK of the necessity of this course. And that seems inconceivable at present. In short, we are in a mess with no apparent way-out. The danger for a Labour government is that the usual suspects would simply blame the party for all the problems arising from Brexit. The only hope to cling to is that political opinion can change quite quickly (as in Johnson’s fall). But it would have to be a massive shift.
Is the desire for joint institutions not another form of exceptionalism? Recall the Barnier Ladder. No joint institutions were forthcoming then and I doubt that they would be now. The EU is a creature of rules and to make new rules to accommodate a third country is unlikely.
“Is the desire for joint institutions not another form of exceptionalism?”
My response to this irksome point: https://davidallengreen.com/2023/06/life-after-brexit-and-exceptionalism/
The institutions already exist.
Do you mean that we should buckle down, operate The TCA, and stop complaining?
Because that’s certainly what The EU wants from us.
I think you and Jacob Jacob Öberg make some very strong points in your post.
Points 4) and 7) of Jacob’s are particularly resonate with my opinion:
“4) The central point here is that the EU needs to trust the UK and UK must show commitment to be a part of the EU. The main start position will thus be that the UK need to act as a ‘normal’ EU MS.”
Trust is a hard characteristic to measure considering the way the Exit negotiations and subsequent TCA negotiations played out – being totally honest, it’s very hard to see the UK wanting or needing to show its future commitment to join the single currency or wishing to integrate further into a grand political and regulatory union. I just don’t see people seeking the big vision or political nirvana promised.
“7) So even if political backing in the UK remains strong (and the EU might expect at least 60–65% for several years), the UK has a very long path ahead to re-joining the EU. Not impossible but it is not an easy path. Perhaps a decade…..”
The EU of 2016 doesn’t exist – it’s moved on and so have world events including the UK, Covid and more devastatingly for EU (and wider Europe) Ukraine. The EU has taken a major step forward in mutualising its debts (even for countries outside of the eurozone) and the idea that the UK would one day have to pay (for even part) of this debt puts barriers up given the real pressures for greater debt mutulalisation in the future by France and Italy.
Helping to create peace and helping to re-constuct Ukraine is likely to take years if not decades – whilst the UK will do its bit, the vast burden of reconstruction will undoubtedly fall on EU member states and their priorities will rightly be on the Ukraine and EU.
The added problem to joining the EU is one of divergence – already we are seeing in some sectors expected divergence in financial services and especially digital services including AI regulatory oversight – given the lack of EU capability and scale in AI , it’s more likely that the UK will follow/align more with the US in order to seek /reap the likely productivity gains that AI promise.
The longer we’re out, and restart to use the freedoms of Brexit (which we’ve not really done yet) the more likely it is that we will diverge incrementally and naturally – we are already seeing this in goods and services exports. with Non EU trade growing faster than EU trade. This was to be expected as supply chains and sourcing find new equilibriums post Brexit and Covid.
The harder ‘sell’ for remainers is that they have to galvanise new EU loyalists and including leavers and show the real benefits of the EU – David Cameron’s serious faux pas of ‘ lower roaming prices for mobiles ‘ just wasn’t the most potent or convincing rallying cry ever made for membership of the EU.
For all of the above – we can actually build on the TCA & Windsor Agreement. Far more intellectually coherent, less emotional for all parties.
Yes it will take time and a large majority support. The danger is that the damage to the economy will happen quicker. The UK is already falling out of EU supply chains which pushes it to lower value added business. Non-EU trade doesn’t compensate. Windsor and other Sunak initiatives are nice but small beer. So the question is how long voters will accept the gradual decline. That’s why EEA might be a solution: inside the SM but not the political and monetary union. Meanwhile the utter emptiness of Brexit is laid bare. No plan, no direction and the realization that it was based on wishful thinking rather than logic
Long before Brexit trade was getting lower by the year with the EU.
The real challenges now about even contemplating the SM even if EU said yes.
1. Future entry terms – hard to see any benefit or desire of UK to join the Euro
2. FoM – given even higher rates of immigration outside of EU, FoM will simply exacerbate the problem – add EU + boatpeople+ RoW and it’s approaching c. 1m immigrants per annum – this is too much of a challenge for the uk, housing & infrastructure
3. The SM really doesn’t cater very well for services – indeed we trade more with RoW in services than with the EU
4. Eurozone caucusing – since 2015, QMV and Eurozone caucusing was used to outvote UK on numerous issues/policies – it’s almost inevitable that EZ will eventually lead the EU -UK at massive disadvantage & no interest or desire to enter the SM where sovereignty is genuinely and permanently lost.
Building on TCA best option given Macrons strategic autonomy for EU vision.
Brexit simply switched immigration from EU to non EU. That isn’t a problem with freedom of movement, it’s an economic fact of life. Rejoining with FOM wouldn’t increase immigration. Rejoining would also re-enable the UK to return asylum seekers using the Dublin agreement, something Brexit scuppered.
People coming to work in the UK from the EU often saw it as temporary and planned to return to their home country eventually. It would be easy because of FOM. Non-EU immigration is more likely to be permanent.
For me, FOM was important for my business. Loss of it forced me to close it. FOM was a good thing for people in the UK too.
Kevin – gotta deal with the world as it is , not as you’d like.
With FoM it transpired we had over 6m EU citizens here not 3.1.
RoW immigration now 600k + & boat people likely in the order 100K.
Even if fewer EU citizens come, it’s still 900K per annum which we manifestly can’t cope with.
Plus,, Dublin convention doesn’t/can’t work given no. of immigrants who somehow get to France & Germany.
Sorry you lost your business – UK exploited cheap EU labour for years & kept numerous zombie businesses alive. The music had to stop in the end.
My business relied on my freedom of movement. I wasn’t exploiting cheap EU labour. Your assumption is unacceptable. You should apologise.
You’re confusing total numbers with net migration. EU migrants were doing valuable work in the economy. They contributed more than they cost the UK, as you well know.
The Dublin convention was quite useful for the UK. We gave that possibility up with Brexit.
I am thinking of things as they are. Things are much worse since Brexit.
“Sorry you lost your business – UK exploited cheap EU labour for years & kept numerous zombie businesses alive. The music had to stop in the end.”
I hope you take comfort from that. And I’m sure JJ does not mean YOU were the one exploiting cheap EU labour.
And when the music of zombie UK agriculture, zombie UK health care, to name two area’s where cheap (?) EU labour played their sovereignty-threatening tunes, finally dies out, there will always be a Brexiteer having the last word about the Final and Irreversible Transmutation that, one day, will deliver the sunny uplands in which you will thrive again
Jon Jones doesn’t understand that freedom of movement is for everyone, not only immigrants to the UK. UK citizens lost a significant right.
As for zombie UK healthcare that’s far from the truth. If the NHS was properly funded we wouldn’t have ever increasing waiting lists. The treatment provided is still exceptional.
Well said, Kevin ; I know quite a few businesses that closed down as a result of Brexit. It’s a disaster for small businesses.
@Kevin
I was obviously neither clear nor on target in my irony when calling health care and agriculture as examples of the “zombie businesses” created by EU membership that was referred to by John Jones.
I’m from the Netherlands and totally agree that your NHS, even now while being underfunded, is a real asset to your society.
Thanks for clarifying that Peter. Sorry for my reaction. Irony can be hard to spot in text.
With respect this is the same uniformed argument Leave used.
1. EU trade was by far the most important single market and was high value added. Industry is already reporting the damaging effects of being excluded for the EU supply chains. RoW simply doesn’t offer even a replacement.
2. EU immigration was neither as large as ex-EU immigration is now, nor was it a challenge to British jobs. The idiocy of the immigration argument has been exposed with levels now reaching 750k. Clearly it could not be worse being inside the SM
3. Services was a huge beneficiary of the SM and there was more to come as the SM was still getting better for services. Passporting was a huge benefit and that has gone. No one in services is saying life is better post Brexit.
4. The UK had significant influence and worked well with the Hanseatic block that shared many common interests. The UK was the driving force behind the SM and expansion. Expansion btw was pushed by the UK precisely to reduce the power of the main 4 country block votes.
TCA is a dead end. It fails miserably to give the access that counts and as Industry is making clear, consigns the UK to low value added production.
A mindless process based on a couple to eccentric economists and a lot of wishful thinking with zero work on process or details. What is worse is that now that finally there is a PM who is trying to put a working framework in place all the ERG can do is scream betrayal.
Au contraire.
Between 1999 and 2007, the EU accounted for 50-55% of UK exports. By 2022, this figure had fallen to 42%. The share of UK imports from the EU has also fallen since 1999, although by less than for exports.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
FoM /Immigration
“EU immigration was neither as large as ex-EU immigration is now”
Immigration is now c. 600K people per annum inc c. 50,000 potentially from boats.
If we re-joined the EU with FoM , it’s highly likely that c. an extra 200,000 to 300,000 would arrive from the EU – it’s just a fact of live – not even contentious. The UK has neither the housing stock or infrastructure to cope with this level of immigration.
“Services was a huge beneficiary of the SM and there was more to come as the SM was still getting better for services. Passporting was a huge benefit and that has gone. No one in services is saying life is better post Brexit…”
Services is extremely undeveloped with the EU – one only has to look at the largest market for services which is public services – Italy and France awarded c. 80-90% of their public sector services work to their own country.
UK has ‘lost’ c. 7000 jobs to the EU when the talk at the referendum was of the order of 200,000 job losses. UK has found and created new financial services in RoW albeit there is some work going to NYC for IPO’s .
“The UK was the driving force behind the SM and expansion” – it was pre Eurozone – the SM is now effectively run by the Eurozone which rarely align with UK needs /wants – I’ve no beef about that but the idea that eurozone caucusing to the detriment of UK decision making , makes the SM less attractive. There is no clamour for the UK to join the Eurozone except by the euro zealots .
The TCA is merely a baseline – it’s a starter pack in the jargon.
There are 19 sub-committee’s that can all be built on. Now that the EU have an overt EU strategic autonomy vision as expounded by M Macron, UK needs to balance its own strategic needs with the EU strategic autonomy – I’m sure we’ll row parallel boats when we need to and we will diverge when it’s in UK’s strategic interests ( like AUKUS and CTPPP).
I concede that maybe in a generation or two say 25-50 years we’ll get a different picture – until such time, lets build on the TCA – that’s what it’s there for.
2022 is post Brexit, hardly surprising EU trade shows a fall because of the barriers to trade.
😚…it was 45% at the time of the referendum – trade with the EU has been on a downward trajectory for over 25 years – apologies that I can’t sugar-coat the sweet any higher.
Classic.
The EU is as your own figures state, the largest market fort the UK. It is the largest economic driver for all but 1 of the UK regions. The impact of Brexit has been highly damaging for agriculture, even more so with the ANZAC deals which basically open the door got cheap competition.
You obviously dont understand “services”. Services as opposed to traded goods is the mist dynamic and largest sector of the UK economy. It earns massive trade surplus and pays a lot of tax.
The EU was its biggest market and SM favoured it because passporting allowed easy entry without local offices or registration. That has been destroyed. Large firms can shift business offshore or pay for registration. Small ones, the most vital part of services growth, cannot.
Immigration exploded with Brexit. The figure is now 750K all,ost all non-EU under new rules. There is no reason to think it would grow even more within the EU although EU immigration wpoiuld replace non-EU.
The SM is not run by the EZ. It is a set of trade rules, not a currency regime. The UK was widely acknowledged as being a key part of SM expansion. No one was suggesting that the UK join the EZ.
You like Leave do not understand the difference between trade agreements and the SM. Trade agreements cannot replicate SM. SM is barrier free and single regulation. That is why industry is worried about falling out of the EU supply chain. The damage will be long tern and cannot be changed with add ons to TCA. Switzerland style agreements are not in offer and anyway mean accepting EU regulation. Nor are there wonderful untapped FTAs around the world as the last 7 years have made starkly clear.
Let’s see in 25-50 years is akin to Rees-Mogg saying economic benefit will only appear in 50 years.
“Let Brexiters have their technical sovereignty, and let us also have a substantial and practical close association with the European Union, while nominally being outside.” Despite some of the reservations posted above, that would be a great relief. Stereotypical Brexiters seems far more absorbed by their trophy than how it was won in the first place and what to do with it in practical terms.
It would be a great relief, no doubt, but it is hardly a more realistic aspiration than rejoining. The idea that the Member States would build agreement among themselves on their desired institutions, rules and policies, and then enter into a discourse with a third country to modify those institutions, rules and policies to secure its buy-in is a non-starter.
UK can participate in forming shared institutions, rules and policies as a Member State, or it can join the SM and formally become a ruletaker with only modest influence on institutions, rules and policies, or it can remain aloof and, by force of economic reality, be a tacit ruletaker with negligible influence at all on institutions, rules and policies; that’s pretty much the range of options.
I feel relief not from any certainty of the success of DAG’s idea, though I do think it a good idea and far from hopeless, but rather from a moment of light and possibility in the endless, grinding experience of misery in the gross mess made in respect of the EU.
“Let Brexiters have their technical sovereignty, and let us also have a substantial and practical close association with the European Union, while nominally being outside.”
I wish you good luck.
I also hear a message of “brace brace” underneath your reasoning.
I think that, as far as the EU is concerned, the association at this moment is sufficiently substantial and practical and as close as it can be with a third country.
Only when the UK of GB & NI interferes with the interest and safety of EU citizens (or citizens with a special status related to the EU) within her boundaries you may hear noises from the continent.
In the meantime I’m afraid the English will keep talking among themselves.
Rome was not built in one day and neither was Londonderry.
But once in a while leaders play their fiddle while the fires rage.
If this feudal dictatorship of a government wishes to boost its economy and gain global influence, then it needs to seek membership of a club it has not defamed and tried to undermine.
May I suggest application to be a minor distant outpost of the African League?
Perhaps Brexit will not be a failure after all. Depends what you really intended Brexit to achieve.
Plainly a conventional economic success story was never a Brexit possibility. But if one thinks long term (50 years) the UK could be turned into a very pleasant BTL opportunity. Put ones wealth offshore, buy up the worthwhile property and Harry Potter themed universities and the NT then run the place like a theme park with a rental income.
A sort of return to feudal times, a triumph of the rentiers. One problem might be Starmer but with the help of the media and the finance sector he can probably be neutralised and Bring Back Boris. What could possibly stop such a well thought out plan.
I fully agree that it would be a matter of an application to join and not rejoining but I can understand why the term ‘rejoin’ is used.
The sobering facts for those supporters of ‘rejoining’ are:
1) accession requires a formal application and under EU law any application must be accompanied by proof that it is the will of the majority of people in the UK.
2) said proof must be obtained via “the usual constitutional means” of the applicant nation and for the UK that means:
a) an Act of Parliament backing the application and
b) a new referendum with majority support.
However, given the decades of anti-EU sentiment & delusions about the status of the UK on the world stage and cognisant of the narrow margin for leave in the 2016 referendum the EU Commission will insist that:
a) the Act requesting accession is passed by a large majority in Parliament supported by all major parties and,
b) that the referendum is passed by at least a 60% majority and with over 50% of eligible voters participating.
I cannot see these conditions being met anytime soon – in my opinion it will take a generation.
Plus all the above is merely to have the application accepted for starting accession talks and its then a whole raft of other issues will arise such as membership of the Euro, all the former opt outs from EU law the UK had, the financial rebates, etc. Typically even with the best will in the world accession talks take 10yrs.
There is no doubt in my mind that while a majority may want to ‘rejoin’ they will want it on the same sort of terms as the UK had before – cakeism is very much still around.
I’m afraid that ‘Brexit is done’ and there is no easy way to reverse.
One of the disservices from the ‘rejoin’ camp is the illusion brexit can be somehow reversed and all will be well. As you rightly point out, any future effort to join the EU will require and application backed up by even more stringent requirements than many existing applicants given the turmoil brexit has caused to the whole of the EU as well as the UK.
However, a thin hope prevails that in nearer time there will be movement towards a Single Market and Customs Union application if only to help undo some of the damage brexit and its advocates have inflicted on UK industry, harm which cannot be allowed to persist despite the howls of the go-it-alone, imperially hogtied exceptionalists.
Andrew – great points made – Sir Con O’Neill, Edward Heath’s EEC negotiator said the words ” swallow it all , swallow it whole” in respect of the then entry into the EEC..
The politicos knew then the costs of joining the EU and it wasn’t pick n mix or the bastardised compromise that we ended up with the Lisbon agreement.
Like you, I think that fot the foreseeable future, Brexit is seen to be done, with even most of the remainers not clamouring to join the Euro.
Twenty/thirty years will be interesting in demographics & what happens in Ukraine.
There are certainly costs to being in the EU, but there are benefits too and they far outweigh the costs. Primarily the single market, which gives all member states barrier free trading access to an enormous home market. Equivalent to the home market the USA enjoys. That’s what we have given up and hardly anyone outside the UK can understand why we did it.
We are outside the EU, but Brexit is not yet done. The Brexit Ultras are still influential, trying to make sure we get to their treasured goal: a massively deregulated nation, exploiting its own population for the wealth of a very few. Only when these people are out of reach of power will something sensible be able to be salvaged from the wreck.
I always appreciate what you write, Kevin, and on this blog I think you’re spot on.
Thanks Alison, much appreciated. I just wish Cameron and Osborne hadn’t been so craven and argued the economic case properly instead of worrying about UKIP and the Euro-sceptics
Absolutely. And that James Goldsmith had never started the Referendum Party.
I agree, Kevin.
First: my apologies, David. There are of course joint committees to oversee the implementation of WA and TCA and discuss possible extensions. By ‘joint institutions’ I mistakenly thought you meant the kind of co-determination structures that the UK sought, unsuccessfully, to obtain re financial services and data protection. My misunderstanding.
Second: currently the UK is still trying to decide how to position itself vis-a-vis the EU in a post-Brexit world. This is essential analysis, so the country can set its course and move forward. But to be effective, any decision needs to take realistic account of how the EU views things. This short article is the best account I have seen of that. It’s worth reading
https://pascallth.substack.com/p/for-the-eu-brexit-is-already-working?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email