Debunking Matt Goodwin’s “10 reasons why Britain will not rejoin the EU” I enjoy the writings of Matt Goodwin very much these days. Mostly because no one else in Britain fills me with more hope that Britain will rejoin the EU sooner than any of us might have thought than he does, and the professor does it constantly. He always gives me new reasons and angles on why the UK will rejoin the European Union that I couldn’t have thought of without him.
"...you will be re-joining a club that is insufficiently democratic, insufficiently transparent, and which still suffers from a glaring ‘democratic deficit’”
This argument always makes me think of the supreme brexsitter blinkers they choose to wear because it is Britain that has the biggest democratic deficit this side of various failed states.
Unelected hereditary head of state with powers and influence, including the Crown's requested and granted exemption from hundreds of laws. So some people are above the law here.
Unelected upper house of parliament stuffed full of cronies and party donors, one likely Russian spy, hereditaries and the only assured legislative positions for clerics in the world outside of Iran. All appointed incredibly at least (hereditaries) for their lifetimes.
The commons, councils, mayors and police commissioners elected by First Past the Post, an electoral system that might have been the most that could be managed in the era where the fastest communications might have been horse or sail power. But which produces results which can barely be called democracy at all. Governments with overall majorities on 35% of the vote. Parties elected to government that had less votes than the one relegated into 2nd place opposition. MP's elected with 30% of their constituency vote or even lower.
FPTP also makes over half of all seats safe. This makes the MP unlikely to do any campaigning or few other efforts, because he or she takes the voters for granted and there is no effective competition for the seat. It is little better than the Rotten Boroughs of old.
Meanwhile, there are parties with millions of votes getting one or no MP's at all. The EU's Party List PR system suffers none of these democratic outrages.
Single member constituencies. Unlike the EU's multi member constituencies, the UK system means voters going unrepresented for months, years or permanently because of MP's vanishing for various reasons, being lazy or making excuses not to do the work (Nadine Dores). Or else the one MP does not agree with your viewpoint and will not touch an issue.
The Electoral Commission in the UK has judicial powers yet has been taken over by the government, losing it's independence and is now reliant on Gove's decision before making investigations.
The UK parliament is virtually owned by the executive, using it in many ways as a rubber stamp, with whips, threats of deselection and Johnson loyalty agreements. Imagine the backlash if these means were used in the EU Parliament?
The EU has a Parliament elected by PR and multi member constituencies with typically a range of parties in every such area to represent people. It has a Council of elected heads of national governments and the Commission which is just their civil service. Unlike the UK civil service, the Commission heads and deputies are elected by other EU elected bodies. The Commission has no power to pass laws and operates guided by the other EU bodies and in consulting interested parties, much as the Civil Service. The Commission has been widely misrepresented by brexsitters much as everything else has been.
I'd like to see real reform of this cap doffing country where democracy is a fig leaf and in my lifetime, but it seems unlikely.
Very good points on each of those spurious claims!
For myself I would add
1) Some of the opt-outs were even designed to deprive the British people from advances accessible to their European peers.
Best example is Schengen, one of the most obvious achievements of European cooperation.
The UK signed up to all the bits that made government's life easier like access to databases, cooperation and information sharing between members' law enforcement agency.
And then got an opt-out for the bit that is a tangible benefit for normal people, the removal of passport checks when crossing internal borders.
2) "Sending more money" can easily be counteracted by a better approach of accessing EU funds.
When we look at EU budget contributions in the last years before Brexit, the UK have in at fourth place after Germany, France and Italy. It would have been third without the rebate.
If we look at the numbers reduced by EU money spent, the UK suddenly moves up to second place after Germany.
Which means the governments of France and Italy were much better in acquiring EU funding.
Both on the national and regional level.
Essentially the only area in which the UK was good at that was science.
And it was good at that because it didn't require governmental involvement, or rather avoided governmental interference.
3) Indeed. Euro membership requires that a country actually fulfills the necessary criteria.
The opt-out is essentially just a way of hiding the embarrassment of the UK's failed attempt to match them.
It is also one of the opt-outs designed to deprive the British people from another tangible improvement achieved by European cooperation.
4) EU membership (or more precisely Single Market membership) has reduced immigration needs of many member nations.
For example in Austria most open vacancies can be filled by EEA citizens, reducing the need for immigration substantially.
7) Brexit removed the UK from having access to the Schengen database and information sharing of EU members' law enforcement agency, making the British people less safe.
Not even talking about the Brexiters' main goal of reducing health, safety and employment regulations.
Interesting (and embarrassing) that CPTPP and it's alleged future potential doesn't appear in the list. Indeed, no potential Brexit benefits at all !
So, whatever the validity of Goodwin's ten points, they also effectively amount to an admission that Brexit now amounts to a sub-optimal entanglement - which the British people have been variously tricked, inveigled and then politically crowbarred into. How else do you explain the unprecedented likely overturn of an eighty seat majority in just a single term ?
Point 1 - While EU will not be punishing GB, there will be no opt-outs. And EU will look closely to make sure that not only real majority (at minimum 60% of population, not of voters) agree, but also that democratic institutions are robust and the (Tory) corruption has been reigned in.
I don't see that happen in just 15 years, because Labour doesn't seem to care about the (very hard) task of reforming the country to improve it. Either Labour is one-nation-real-socialism under Corbyn, or now under Starmer it seems to be "Success like the Tories, but no actual program, let's try populism".
Point 4 - EU citizens don't immigrate, and people need employees, even more in GB after Brexit cut off a large supply.
Point 7 - since EU has Human Rights charta and EU court, they would protect Brits better than under current Tory government. But then, in order to rejoin, GB would need better safeguards on human rights first.
Point 8 - This is both laughable and insulting, given the huge divide between rich (Tory) regions and poor (esp. North and NI) regions in GB after +10 years of Tories using recession/ financial crisis as excuse to gut everything that helps poor people.
It was interesting to learn so many detailed facts (that weren't relevant before) about GB and EU during the campaign, one shocking was that the majority of the 10 poorest regions in all of EU are in GB, not former-communist countries.
Point 10 - Parcel of Rouge already mentioned this, but I also want to remind that modern democracies don't start with voting: autocracies like Nazis and Soviet communists had elections, too, because they are a good figleaf.
Modern democracies start with Human Rights, where each human has the same dignity and worth, no matter how noble or poor, with or without Eton-Oxbridge education, or white English vs anybody foreign.
Everything else, like a fair voting system, is derived from that point, and conversely, a skewed system to let 1% stay in power because of who their parents were can't change until they acknowledge that, which they won't, so the 99% must understand that and rise up.
Re : point 1) : There is no evidence the EU would place onerous or super rigorous demands of the British electorate. They know, as well as we do, that the 2016 referendum was not only marginal, but also a freak result - which was then leveraged by malign political players, many of whom have now left the stage. There was never a major dissatisfaction with our EU membership - and this is now strongly reinforced by demographics and the permanent scarring experience of Brexit.
I agree that the EU is unlikely to place onerous demands on the UK at the point of Bre-join. They would just cut back on some of the 'extra sausages' the UK enjoyed prior to Brexit.
However, in this context it is worth mentioning something else, something which I have come across in a US-context, specifically in the context of 'white privilege' in the USA: If you're one of the 'privileged' then a revering to the middle or normal could feel like persecution or punishment.
I agree, however I also think that münchner kindle is right as well.
You two are simply looking at different aspects of the accession process.
Formally there are no requirements for any referendum or thresholds, only that the request to join being in line with the candidate's own constitutional rules.
In the UK's case that would likely mean an act of parliament which, given the absence of super majority requirements, would be valid with even a single MP more in favour than against.
Now, given the highly contentious nature of any attempt to rejoin and Brexit having derived "legitimation" from the referendum, I would be surprised if the UK itself would not require a referendum to be held.
And I think it is not unlikely to see similar "informal requirements" on the EU side.
Not from the Commission or Parliament, but indirectly from its members, who need to agree unanimously when voting on that in the Council.
Several members had to achieve super majorities in their application process and could easily say they don't feel comfortable until the same level of commitment has been achieved by the UK.
Some of these "informal requirements" might not even be published, just communicated to the UK's delegation, leaving it to the UK government on how to sell this as an exercise in "national unity" or something similar.
Remember that just recently Bulgaria and Romania both achieved all formal criteria for becoming Schengen members, yet Austria still voted against based on, among other things, not trusting the effectiveness of the candidates' new border security.
When (not if) the UK rejoins it will do so after having significant majorities in a referendum and in a parliamentary vote.
Most likely even outlining this as their own "special occasion" requirement, regardless of the usual constitutional leeway.
"...you will be re-joining a club that is insufficiently democratic, insufficiently transparent, and which still suffers from a glaring ‘democratic deficit’”
This argument always makes me think of the supreme brexsitter blinkers they choose to wear because it is Britain that has the biggest democratic deficit this side of various failed states.
Unelected hereditary head of state with powers and influence, including the Crown's requested and granted exemption from hundreds of laws. So some people are above the law here.
Unelected upper house of parliament stuffed full of cronies and party donors, one likely Russian spy, hereditaries and the only assured legislative positions for clerics in the world outside of Iran. All appointed incredibly at least (hereditaries) for their lifetimes.
The commons, councils, mayors and police commissioners elected by First Past the Post, an electoral system that might have been the most that could be managed in the era where the fastest communications might have been horse or sail power. But which produces results which can barely be called democracy at all. Governments with overall majorities on 35% of the vote. Parties elected to government that had less votes than the one relegated into 2nd place opposition. MP's elected with 30% of their constituency vote or even lower.
FPTP also makes over half of all seats safe. This makes the MP unlikely to do any campaigning or few other efforts, because he or she takes the voters for granted and there is no effective competition for the seat. It is little better than the Rotten Boroughs of old.
Meanwhile, there are parties with millions of votes getting one or no MP's at all. The EU's Party List PR system suffers none of these democratic outrages.
Single member constituencies. Unlike the EU's multi member constituencies, the UK system means voters going unrepresented for months, years or permanently because of MP's vanishing for various reasons, being lazy or making excuses not to do the work (Nadine Dores). Or else the one MP does not agree with your viewpoint and will not touch an issue.
The Electoral Commission in the UK has judicial powers yet has been taken over by the government, losing it's independence and is now reliant on Gove's decision before making investigations.
The UK parliament is virtually owned by the executive, using it in many ways as a rubber stamp, with whips, threats of deselection and Johnson loyalty agreements. Imagine the backlash if these means were used in the EU Parliament?
The EU has a Parliament elected by PR and multi member constituencies with typically a range of parties in every such area to represent people. It has a Council of elected heads of national governments and the Commission which is just their civil service. Unlike the UK civil service, the Commission heads and deputies are elected by other EU elected bodies. The Commission has no power to pass laws and operates guided by the other EU bodies and in consulting interested parties, much as the Civil Service. The Commission has been widely misrepresented by brexsitters much as everything else has been.
I'd like to see real reform of this cap doffing country where democracy is a fig leaf and in my lifetime, but it seems unlikely.
I'd also like to add that the EU, like almost every union other than the UK, has a body that represents its member, i.e. the Council.
The USA has its Senate, Germany and Austria have Federal Council, Switzerland has something similar called the Ständerat, and so on.
The UK is a rare case of a union without anything like that, let alone requiring majority or even unanimity agreement for certain type of decisions.
Overcoming its obsolete political system will very likely be one of the most challenging reforms required for the UK to become an EU member again
Very good points on each of those spurious claims!
For myself I would add
1) Some of the opt-outs were even designed to deprive the British people from advances accessible to their European peers.
Best example is Schengen, one of the most obvious achievements of European cooperation.
The UK signed up to all the bits that made government's life easier like access to databases, cooperation and information sharing between members' law enforcement agency.
And then got an opt-out for the bit that is a tangible benefit for normal people, the removal of passport checks when crossing internal borders.
2) "Sending more money" can easily be counteracted by a better approach of accessing EU funds.
When we look at EU budget contributions in the last years before Brexit, the UK have in at fourth place after Germany, France and Italy. It would have been third without the rebate.
If we look at the numbers reduced by EU money spent, the UK suddenly moves up to second place after Germany.
Which means the governments of France and Italy were much better in acquiring EU funding.
Both on the national and regional level.
Essentially the only area in which the UK was good at that was science.
And it was good at that because it didn't require governmental involvement, or rather avoided governmental interference.
3) Indeed. Euro membership requires that a country actually fulfills the necessary criteria.
The opt-out is essentially just a way of hiding the embarrassment of the UK's failed attempt to match them.
It is also one of the opt-outs designed to deprive the British people from another tangible improvement achieved by European cooperation.
4) EU membership (or more precisely Single Market membership) has reduced immigration needs of many member nations.
For example in Austria most open vacancies can be filled by EEA citizens, reducing the need for immigration substantially.
7) Brexit removed the UK from having access to the Schengen database and information sharing of EU members' law enforcement agency, making the British people less safe.
Not even talking about the Brexiters' main goal of reducing health, safety and employment regulations.
10) what Parcel of Rouge said
Interesting (and embarrassing) that CPTPP and it's alleged future potential doesn't appear in the list. Indeed, no potential Brexit benefits at all !
So, whatever the validity of Goodwin's ten points, they also effectively amount to an admission that Brexit now amounts to a sub-optimal entanglement - which the British people have been variously tricked, inveigled and then politically crowbarred into. How else do you explain the unprecedented likely overturn of an eighty seat majority in just a single term ?
Point 1 - While EU will not be punishing GB, there will be no opt-outs. And EU will look closely to make sure that not only real majority (at minimum 60% of population, not of voters) agree, but also that democratic institutions are robust and the (Tory) corruption has been reigned in.
I don't see that happen in just 15 years, because Labour doesn't seem to care about the (very hard) task of reforming the country to improve it. Either Labour is one-nation-real-socialism under Corbyn, or now under Starmer it seems to be "Success like the Tories, but no actual program, let's try populism".
Point 4 - EU citizens don't immigrate, and people need employees, even more in GB after Brexit cut off a large supply.
Point 7 - since EU has Human Rights charta and EU court, they would protect Brits better than under current Tory government. But then, in order to rejoin, GB would need better safeguards on human rights first.
Point 8 - This is both laughable and insulting, given the huge divide between rich (Tory) regions and poor (esp. North and NI) regions in GB after +10 years of Tories using recession/ financial crisis as excuse to gut everything that helps poor people.
It was interesting to learn so many detailed facts (that weren't relevant before) about GB and EU during the campaign, one shocking was that the majority of the 10 poorest regions in all of EU are in GB, not former-communist countries.
Point 10 - Parcel of Rouge already mentioned this, but I also want to remind that modern democracies don't start with voting: autocracies like Nazis and Soviet communists had elections, too, because they are a good figleaf.
Modern democracies start with Human Rights, where each human has the same dignity and worth, no matter how noble or poor, with or without Eton-Oxbridge education, or white English vs anybody foreign.
Everything else, like a fair voting system, is derived from that point, and conversely, a skewed system to let 1% stay in power because of who their parents were can't change until they acknowledge that, which they won't, so the 99% must understand that and rise up.
Re : point 1) : There is no evidence the EU would place onerous or super rigorous demands of the British electorate. They know, as well as we do, that the 2016 referendum was not only marginal, but also a freak result - which was then leveraged by malign political players, many of whom have now left the stage. There was never a major dissatisfaction with our EU membership - and this is now strongly reinforced by demographics and the permanent scarring experience of Brexit.
I agree that the EU is unlikely to place onerous demands on the UK at the point of Bre-join. They would just cut back on some of the 'extra sausages' the UK enjoyed prior to Brexit.
However, in this context it is worth mentioning something else, something which I have come across in a US-context, specifically in the context of 'white privilege' in the USA: If you're one of the 'privileged' then a revering to the middle or normal could feel like persecution or punishment.
I agree, however I also think that münchner kindle is right as well.
You two are simply looking at different aspects of the accession process.
Formally there are no requirements for any referendum or thresholds, only that the request to join being in line with the candidate's own constitutional rules.
In the UK's case that would likely mean an act of parliament which, given the absence of super majority requirements, would be valid with even a single MP more in favour than against.
Now, given the highly contentious nature of any attempt to rejoin and Brexit having derived "legitimation" from the referendum, I would be surprised if the UK itself would not require a referendum to be held.
And I think it is not unlikely to see similar "informal requirements" on the EU side.
Not from the Commission or Parliament, but indirectly from its members, who need to agree unanimously when voting on that in the Council.
Several members had to achieve super majorities in their application process and could easily say they don't feel comfortable until the same level of commitment has been achieved by the UK.
Some of these "informal requirements" might not even be published, just communicated to the UK's delegation, leaving it to the UK government on how to sell this as an exercise in "national unity" or something similar.
Remember that just recently Bulgaria and Romania both achieved all formal criteria for becoming Schengen members, yet Austria still voted against based on, among other things, not trusting the effectiveness of the candidates' new border security.
When (not if) the UK rejoins it will do so after having significant majorities in a referendum and in a parliamentary vote.
Most likely even outlining this as their own "special occasion" requirement, regardless of the usual constitutional leeway.