Is it true that the remaining 27 EU member states wouldn’t allow Britain back in if we wanted to rejoin? I’m asking Europe for the answer Something I hear all the time on social media from Remainers is some variant of the following sentiment:This week in Brexitland is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Others may have already made the same point, but it seems as if the entire piece and even the entire interview campaign are at best based on a misunderstanding. I have never read anybody who argues that the UK has sinned against Europe and that therefore continentals are angry and wouldn't let the UK back in if it asked. What I instead read everywhere is that the EU would be unlikely to let the UK back in as long as one of the two major parties is rabidly anti-membership and would immediately cancel an accession process or leave the EU again after their next election win. That makes a lot of sense - why spend years of negotiations for accession when you can already see that it will be for naught? By setting fire to a straw-man, this post simply side-steps that very real issue.
If the Tories lose the GE, and maybe/likely the one after, any move to Rejoin will totally depend on the rout Sunak suffers, and whether the party goes down the One Nation Conservatives route to tack closer to Labour's warmer and closer relationship with the EU, someone like Rory Stewart or Ruth Davison, or maintains a more pro Brexist/Rightist path, likely with Kemi Badenoch or Suella Braverman as leader.
Any moves to Rejoin won't happen if Brussels can see such a leadership won't countenance it.
Now after a third straight defeat, that's when the Conservatives will tack to being pro Rejoin, and thus it'll be after four elections from now that serious moves could happen, just not before.
I think it's a good idea to research what the feelings of the people in the (other) EU member states are about Britain and Brexit, how things are now, and how they feel about the prospect of us rejoining at some future time. I mean, it beats the problem which several have mentioned in comments around here, of our tendency to only consider brexit as it affects UK domestic politics, and it's better to have some information on this than to work in a vacuum or assume we know what people in the EU countries are thinking these days.
As an Austrian without any special affiliations but with friends and colleagues in all four of the UK's constituent countries I would summarize my current view as "yes, when they are ready".
Before the referendum I would have bet good money on a significant win for "Remain".
I'd say my initial reaction to the outcome was actual shock.
Gradually morphing into sad disbelieve as month after month the Brexiters managed to make a bad situation worse, every time finding a new low when you thought they had reached the bottom.
Along the way I realized that a lot of things I had known (or thought I knew) about the UK turned out to be inaccurate or even totally false.
I had not realized that the UK had not safe guards of any form against decisions in something other countries would consider a constitutional change.
No super majority requirements in the Houses of Parliament, no majority agreement of union members, let alone super majority or unanimity.
All political power and sovereignty in the hands of the executive, appointed by the monarch.
Even the power to suspend the only elected body, the House of Commons.
That the right to vote, one of the most fundamental citizen right in a democracy, could be taken away for the "crime" of having spent more than a random amount of years outside the country.
I had always assumed that the UK was just another one of the modern European monarchies.
Like the Netherlands an advanced society that simply liked the show and dazzle that comes with having a Queen.
It is not.
But it will have to be before it can be part of a union again that needs its members to have arrived in the 21st century. Mentally, structurally, politically and not just economically.
Unlike some of the British comment authors I am very confident that the people in the UK do not only want that but will increasingly demand and work toward achieving it.
I am therefore not just optimistic but virtually certain that the UK will rejoin the EU once it has dug itself out of the hole the Brexiters unfortunately keep deepening and, in the process, freed itself from some or all shackles that keep bits of it chained to the 16th century.
Timeframe probably between three and five parliamentary cycles but definitely not "never"
The EU (as decided by its member states, remember) will likely welcome the UK back as a member state if it ever gets around to applying to join.
Although most of the comments to this post go round and round the issue of the conditions for joining, only one that I read appeared to have a clear eyed view of the potential future situation. If the UK applies to join the EU, the conditions that will be applied are the 'standard' membership conditions that exist at the time of the membership negotiations.
There are ways of addressing many of those conditions that are supposedly unacceptable to parts of the UK electorate, as Sweden has demonstrated vis a vis joining the Euro. Whether or not any future UK government will actually look at what others have done and learn from their experience to guide their decisions however is an open question. Past experience regarding the issue of managing the free movement of workers is not encouraging.
Whether or not all future conditions can or will be managed in this way is entirely dependent on how they are framed by UK politicians to the UK electorate. Similarly, past experience from the referendum campaign is not (currently) encouraging given the amounts of disinformation and misinformation that were flung around. That might change, depending on the maturity of future political leaders.
But the clear hurdle that must be passed remains a clear commitment from all major political parties to not only the Single Market, but also to the political dimension of EU membership. This has always been a bugbear of the right that has been trumpeted for the past 40 years. It was tiresome beyond bearing listening to comparisons of 'ever closer union' as decided by member state governments to totalitarian control by the EU or the Commission. Whether or not the political debate about membership in a supranational organisation will change is still unclear.
In 1962, Dean Acheson said "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.". Brexit has demonstrated that the UK still has not found a role it is comfortable with. When it was an EU member state, it was a key bridge between the US and Europe. In 2016 it decided that it wanted to be 'Britannia Unchained', but is now finding that to be hard going. What comes next is perhaps not even being debated at the moment. Everyone is still reacting to events.
It will take some considerable time for all of this to shake out and for political views to stabilise. Nick has likely contributed somewhat to managing the expectations (and perhaps the perceptions) within the rejoin (formerly remain) camp. But the key question is 'what role will the UK now have in the world?'. The answer to that largely lies within the UK.
This is something that has stuck with me from the Brexit negotiation years. Basically that phrase "ever closer union" was a sort of motherhood and apple pie aspiration, rather than a real programme for a united states of Europe. It's something that was in the original European Economic treaty (Treaty of Rome) dating back to the 1950s. And it's also something which David Cameron, in his infamous negotations with the EU just before the referendum, got an official undertaking that we could opt out of this form of words formally if we so desired. (I mean, that's not something I was entirely clued up about at the time of the referendum, but someone pointed that fact out to me in my reading about the EU etc in the years after the vote, and that has stuck with me in the several years since I first heard about that. )
Both the phrase and its intent need to be evaluated in their history context.
A bit over a decade after one of the most devastating wars in history, it was important to phrase goals as both inspirational as well as vague enough to not require immediate agreement on all details.
The very requirement of unanimous consent for any changes to these treaties emphasizes how much the chosen path is something everyone wants to go on.
The suggestion that the UK had had to be dragged along is strong, however I firmly believe that will change over time when its own internal decision processes become more consent based.
The problem is us, not them. We can’t join the EU anytime soon, because we won’t be fit to, nor will we want to. Joining the EU would solve the problems which leaving the EU caused, but it won’t solve the problems which (wrongly) caused us to leave.
First step, we need a national consensus on how to solve broken Britain - how will we provide 21st century healthcare, education, social welfare, justice and policing, etc? Currently, we are too divided to present a coherent image of a nation, which makes it difficult to credibly apply or be accepted as a candidate for membership. The EU should be wary of admitting a new member which is broken and doesn’t have a clue how to fix itself.
Second step, we will need to establish a constitutional and institutional framework which meets our new national consensus and meets the criteria for EU membership. The EU would be foolish to let us join a second time without a constitution, without a democratic, representative parliament, without an independent judiciary which can hold politicians to the constitution, and without a well regulated press, etc. Tinkering with the House of Lords isn’t going to cut it.
Third step, we would need to want to join the EU. We would need to want to enjoy all the benefits of membership, and stop thinking about them as costs. We would need to want Freedom of Movement. We would need to want to adopt the euro. We would need to want to be part of the Schengen zone. We would need to want to adopt all of the acquis, including all the social legislation. We would need to want to show solidarity with the poorest regions of the continent by being net contributors (okay, this only applies if we join as a richer than average country, which might not be the case…). We would need to be committed to ‘ever closer union’. Because, if we aren’t clearly committed to all these things, then some member states will veto our application, if they have any sense.
I don’t see anything like this happening any time soon, and I don’t see the Europeans doing anything beyond making encouraging noises unless we do a big chunk of this.
While it is certainly a taunting task to reform the UK for 21st century reality, the inapt handling of Brexit could very well be the push that is needed.
The Brexiters' feeble attempts to move the UK backwards in time might just be enough to overcome centuries of inertness and get the ball rolling.
For some other countries the needed kick was the loss of their empire.
And some say that Brexit is the last gasps of those still clinging to the British one.
"Tinkering with the House of Lords" might look minor by itself, but it could also signal the willingness and necessity to break with obsolete thinking.
The start of a process rather than an important milestone.
Andy, this is one area I agree with you, much of the UK's political "infrastructure" needs renovating (or demolishing and rebuilt). At the rate we're going it'll be our great grandchildren who'll be debating a 140 year old Nick about this in 2123, lol.
The Question is not, whether or when the EU will allow Britain back in again, the question is, whether or when will britain's establishment allow the continent to live in peace again. It's very very sad.
I can't imagine there'll be any nasty surprises on the conditions for rejoin. EHRC, Single Market, Customs Union. I guess the EU Army if it's running, and timetable to take the €.
Stuff like commitment to Ever Closer Union will be a more philisophical request.
Qualified majority voting in more areas. Agreement on tax harmonization and anti corruption/money laundering regulations.
This will be a pretty straightforward list, have no idea how palatable all of this will be to Brits, even those who voted Remain or were on the fence.
I do know the ERG/Bxt Spartans will be all but gone in one to two GEs, especially if Starmer wins big at both. The Empire nostalgists will be dead or past caring, and the vast majority of electorate will be the group who voted Remain, and those too young to vote in 2016/not even born then.
But but but...if Starmer makes a qualified success of the 2024-2028 period (will be join the Single Market after ruling it out in recent speeches?), it may be that the electorate settles, reluctantly and then path of least resistance, to a closer orbit than contemplating Rejoin, especially if Sunak completes our membership of TPP before the next election.
My prediction is that there will be a sanguine acceptance of our existence outside the EU, but natural drift to friendlier relations. And nothing more.
What about my other points? ECHR/HRA? Supremacy of EU law? In my view those are non-negotiable from the EU perspective - and should be. Note also the UK desire to deviate from EU data protection law (about which I have written).
I do love the take that the EU is a paragon of human rights. The EU that has negotiated for years w Libyan psychopathic Maffiosi to stop migrants leaving N. Africa for EU mainland. Strange how the EHCR that is so held up by Europhiles has nothing to say re this policy. I guess as long as you have a system where poor migrants can't get to Europe, the EHRC isn't relevant.
Convenient, that.
For an adjusted Leaver such as myself, the sooner we stop hearing mistruths like "UK illiberal EU liberal", the better.
I don't think anybody suggested that the situation is perfect.
Just that it is pretty certain that some of the requirements are considered fundamentals, not something that will even be considered to be up for negotiation.
Not that this specific instance would ever be a problem.
The Tories might make a lot of noise to keep their voters happy, but I doubt they would end the UK's membership of the Council of Europe.
They might have purged a lot of their moderates but O doubt they have the majority support for a move like that
I’d call the U.K. a flagging democracy :) Main likely conditions: join the euro? Join new defence arrangements? Absolutely: stay in ECHR and repudiate the Bill of Rights Act (if it ever gets adopted) and accept primacy of EU law. Likeliness of U.K. accepting those?
The so-called requirement to join the Euro has always been a red herring.
While each member is expected to eventually make that step, it is fundamentally a step each member needs to achieve by themselves, at their pace and through their own processes.
This can be easily seen when comparing the different paths current members of the Eurozone have taken.
For example countries that have had close alignment between their currencies for decades could move to the shared currency with little effort.
The UK, on the other hand, would likely face a "steeper hillside" and decide to prioritize other reforms for the time being.
Especially in the light that the first attempt - to be part of the Euro founding group - had failed so miserably.
It is difficult to rebuild confidence after failure but can also result in much greater focus and commitment on a new attempt.
Having said that, the euro will probably not be an issue to the younger demographic -especially if we have reached/gone through parity in the meantime.
The assertion that "they won't want us back" - always seemed like a weasel straw argument. After all, how could anyone speak for the EU, let alone know the thinking of the member states ? But here, Nick has comprehensively (and hopefully finally) blown this canard out of the water.
Another variant of this is that the remorselessly spiteful EU will inevitably impose draconian conditions on the UK. But again. this doesn't stand up to any logical reasoning. The existing conditions for new members are mainly intended for fledgling (Serbia) or fragile (Turkey) democracies - who in any case all have to undergo an intensive vetting and education process. For a returning, centrally important member and historical democracy like the UK, it's inconceivable that everything wouldn't be up for negotiation - as Barnier, Macron and von der Leyen have all indicated.
Well, not comprehensively yet, given that he says he's only got views from 7 out of 27 members yet. Calling the EU "remorselessly spiteful" sounds more like Ultra Brexiter feeling that hopeless rejoiner sentiment. I mean, I guess the "staircase" thing is in operation in discussions about how we could get back in just as it was in the discussion about how much of the Single market we still wanted to be in as we were leaving.
I think it comes down to the fact that we have to get over ourselves as a country, and really come to a reckoning with our place in the world, and where is the best place for us to be as a country.
I think the concept of "draconian conditions" is a Brexiter myth.
The standard conditions will apply and no one other than Brexiters would consider them "draconian".
How close the UK will be to satisfying these conditions will largely depend on how much damage the current government can do to the existing alignment.
For example consider two situations: one where the bill to repeal all EU law by end of 2023 has been passed and one where it has not.
Yes, I would call these arguments "Brexit appeaser myths" - it's a sort of last resort canard that plays to the general sentiment that the referendum wound are so deep, the whole issue can't be brought up again in polite society. But in fact, this simply illustrates the enormous economic and geopolitical ramifications of Brexit - which by the way I think are still widely underestimated.
As marc said the conditions might change until the time when the UK decides to start the application process.
But at that time they should be pretty well know as the EU publishes them after each update.
For discussions on potential rejoin right now it would make most sense to use the current set of criteria and not speculate about how these might change in the near or mid term future.
As far as I can see there is no indication that they might change at all in that timeframe
We obviously can't know the precise conditions until we agree to re-join - and then start the negotiations.
But let's get another canard out of the way at the same time : The "conditions for new members" almost certainly won't apply to a returning and historically centrally important democracy like the UK. In particular, those "conditions" were drawn with fledgling democracies (eg Serbia) in mind.
You seem to be commenting on something that has not been written in either the article or any of the comments.
While I agree that the debacle of how Westminster overrode a cross-party majority decision in an area devolved to the member level show how much democracy is lacking, but that is entirely off-topic for the blog at hand.
The rest reads like a Brexiter rant to be fair, mixing bits of reality into a list of fantasy grievances that don't exist.
So, there's been no comments here on how tenuous our democratic expression is re Rejoining? I read various comments on other Bxt blogs that Nick has written about mentioning human rights adherence in respect to us Rejoining, the inference being that there are some issues here.
If these aren't an issue, why are they mentioned, if they are, then I humbly disagree.
The criticism this is a Brexiteer rant is interesting.
The more they sabotage the current alignment, the more economic pain will be felt, and the more the case against Brexit becomes irrefutable.
Don't make the mistake of inferring some sort of 3D Chess ability on behalf of the likes of Rees-Mogg, Francois, Duncan Smith, etc. As Cummings once exclaimed, they are a patchily educated, parasitic and habitually lazy cabal - with no understanding of how the global economy works, and certainly without any cogent plan.
A further point on any "scorched earth" sabotage tactics between now and the election in 2025 :
This would provide Starmer with a beautiful ready-made excuse to pivot on the Single Market - within a few months of taking power : - ie "Due to Tory deliberate damage to and undermining of the existing deal alignment, it is no longer feasible to make the existing Brexit work as previously pledged". You get the picture.
Others may have already made the same point, but it seems as if the entire piece and even the entire interview campaign are at best based on a misunderstanding. I have never read anybody who argues that the UK has sinned against Europe and that therefore continentals are angry and wouldn't let the UK back in if it asked. What I instead read everywhere is that the EU would be unlikely to let the UK back in as long as one of the two major parties is rabidly anti-membership and would immediately cancel an accession process or leave the EU again after their next election win. That makes a lot of sense - why spend years of negotiations for accession when you can already see that it will be for naught? By setting fire to a straw-man, this post simply side-steps that very real issue.
If the Tories lose the GE, and maybe/likely the one after, any move to Rejoin will totally depend on the rout Sunak suffers, and whether the party goes down the One Nation Conservatives route to tack closer to Labour's warmer and closer relationship with the EU, someone like Rory Stewart or Ruth Davison, or maintains a more pro Brexist/Rightist path, likely with Kemi Badenoch or Suella Braverman as leader.
Any moves to Rejoin won't happen if Brussels can see such a leadership won't countenance it.
Now after a third straight defeat, that's when the Conservatives will tack to being pro Rejoin, and thus it'll be after four elections from now that serious moves could happen, just not before.
Set your calendar for 2040, lol.
I think it's a good idea to research what the feelings of the people in the (other) EU member states are about Britain and Brexit, how things are now, and how they feel about the prospect of us rejoining at some future time. I mean, it beats the problem which several have mentioned in comments around here, of our tendency to only consider brexit as it affects UK domestic politics, and it's better to have some information on this than to work in a vacuum or assume we know what people in the EU countries are thinking these days.
As an Austrian without any special affiliations but with friends and colleagues in all four of the UK's constituent countries I would summarize my current view as "yes, when they are ready".
Before the referendum I would have bet good money on a significant win for "Remain".
I'd say my initial reaction to the outcome was actual shock.
Gradually morphing into sad disbelieve as month after month the Brexiters managed to make a bad situation worse, every time finding a new low when you thought they had reached the bottom.
Along the way I realized that a lot of things I had known (or thought I knew) about the UK turned out to be inaccurate or even totally false.
I had not realized that the UK had not safe guards of any form against decisions in something other countries would consider a constitutional change.
No super majority requirements in the Houses of Parliament, no majority agreement of union members, let alone super majority or unanimity.
All political power and sovereignty in the hands of the executive, appointed by the monarch.
Even the power to suspend the only elected body, the House of Commons.
That the right to vote, one of the most fundamental citizen right in a democracy, could be taken away for the "crime" of having spent more than a random amount of years outside the country.
I had always assumed that the UK was just another one of the modern European monarchies.
Like the Netherlands an advanced society that simply liked the show and dazzle that comes with having a Queen.
It is not.
But it will have to be before it can be part of a union again that needs its members to have arrived in the 21st century. Mentally, structurally, politically and not just economically.
Unlike some of the British comment authors I am very confident that the people in the UK do not only want that but will increasingly demand and work toward achieving it.
I am therefore not just optimistic but virtually certain that the UK will rejoin the EU once it has dug itself out of the hole the Brexiters unfortunately keep deepening and, in the process, freed itself from some or all shackles that keep bits of it chained to the 16th century.
Timeframe probably between three and five parliamentary cycles but definitely not "never"
The EU (as decided by its member states, remember) will likely welcome the UK back as a member state if it ever gets around to applying to join.
Although most of the comments to this post go round and round the issue of the conditions for joining, only one that I read appeared to have a clear eyed view of the potential future situation. If the UK applies to join the EU, the conditions that will be applied are the 'standard' membership conditions that exist at the time of the membership negotiations.
There are ways of addressing many of those conditions that are supposedly unacceptable to parts of the UK electorate, as Sweden has demonstrated vis a vis joining the Euro. Whether or not any future UK government will actually look at what others have done and learn from their experience to guide their decisions however is an open question. Past experience regarding the issue of managing the free movement of workers is not encouraging.
Whether or not all future conditions can or will be managed in this way is entirely dependent on how they are framed by UK politicians to the UK electorate. Similarly, past experience from the referendum campaign is not (currently) encouraging given the amounts of disinformation and misinformation that were flung around. That might change, depending on the maturity of future political leaders.
But the clear hurdle that must be passed remains a clear commitment from all major political parties to not only the Single Market, but also to the political dimension of EU membership. This has always been a bugbear of the right that has been trumpeted for the past 40 years. It was tiresome beyond bearing listening to comparisons of 'ever closer union' as decided by member state governments to totalitarian control by the EU or the Commission. Whether or not the political debate about membership in a supranational organisation will change is still unclear.
In 1962, Dean Acheson said "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.". Brexit has demonstrated that the UK still has not found a role it is comfortable with. When it was an EU member state, it was a key bridge between the US and Europe. In 2016 it decided that it wanted to be 'Britannia Unchained', but is now finding that to be hard going. What comes next is perhaps not even being debated at the moment. Everyone is still reacting to events.
It will take some considerable time for all of this to shake out and for political views to stabilise. Nick has likely contributed somewhat to managing the expectations (and perhaps the perceptions) within the rejoin (formerly remain) camp. But the key question is 'what role will the UK now have in the world?'. The answer to that largely lies within the UK.
This is something that has stuck with me from the Brexit negotiation years. Basically that phrase "ever closer union" was a sort of motherhood and apple pie aspiration, rather than a real programme for a united states of Europe. It's something that was in the original European Economic treaty (Treaty of Rome) dating back to the 1950s. And it's also something which David Cameron, in his infamous negotations with the EU just before the referendum, got an official undertaking that we could opt out of this form of words formally if we so desired. (I mean, that's not something I was entirely clued up about at the time of the referendum, but someone pointed that fact out to me in my reading about the EU etc in the years after the vote, and that has stuck with me in the several years since I first heard about that. )
Very good points!
Both the phrase and its intent need to be evaluated in their history context.
A bit over a decade after one of the most devastating wars in history, it was important to phrase goals as both inspirational as well as vague enough to not require immediate agreement on all details.
The very requirement of unanimous consent for any changes to these treaties emphasizes how much the chosen path is something everyone wants to go on.
The suggestion that the UK had had to be dragged along is strong, however I firmly believe that will change over time when its own internal decision processes become more consent based.
The problem is us, not them. We can’t join the EU anytime soon, because we won’t be fit to, nor will we want to. Joining the EU would solve the problems which leaving the EU caused, but it won’t solve the problems which (wrongly) caused us to leave.
First step, we need a national consensus on how to solve broken Britain - how will we provide 21st century healthcare, education, social welfare, justice and policing, etc? Currently, we are too divided to present a coherent image of a nation, which makes it difficult to credibly apply or be accepted as a candidate for membership. The EU should be wary of admitting a new member which is broken and doesn’t have a clue how to fix itself.
Second step, we will need to establish a constitutional and institutional framework which meets our new national consensus and meets the criteria for EU membership. The EU would be foolish to let us join a second time without a constitution, without a democratic, representative parliament, without an independent judiciary which can hold politicians to the constitution, and without a well regulated press, etc. Tinkering with the House of Lords isn’t going to cut it.
Third step, we would need to want to join the EU. We would need to want to enjoy all the benefits of membership, and stop thinking about them as costs. We would need to want Freedom of Movement. We would need to want to adopt the euro. We would need to want to be part of the Schengen zone. We would need to want to adopt all of the acquis, including all the social legislation. We would need to want to show solidarity with the poorest regions of the continent by being net contributors (okay, this only applies if we join as a richer than average country, which might not be the case…). We would need to be committed to ‘ever closer union’. Because, if we aren’t clearly committed to all these things, then some member states will veto our application, if they have any sense.
I don’t see anything like this happening any time soon, and I don’t see the Europeans doing anything beyond making encouraging noises unless we do a big chunk of this.
TL;DR - I’m not holding my breath.
While it is certainly a taunting task to reform the UK for 21st century reality, the inapt handling of Brexit could very well be the push that is needed.
The Brexiters' feeble attempts to move the UK backwards in time might just be enough to overcome centuries of inertness and get the ball rolling.
For some other countries the needed kick was the loss of their empire.
And some say that Brexit is the last gasps of those still clinging to the British one.
"Tinkering with the House of Lords" might look minor by itself, but it could also signal the willingness and necessity to break with obsolete thinking.
The start of a process rather than an important milestone.
Andy, this is one area I agree with you, much of the UK's political "infrastructure" needs renovating (or demolishing and rebuilt). At the rate we're going it'll be our great grandchildren who'll be debating a 140 year old Nick about this in 2123, lol.
Zero chance of this, sorry. And I agree with many of your points.
I think this idea of rejection is mostly projection.
People are aware that in order to join the UK will have to undergo significant reform in many areas.
Which in itself would be an extremely worthwhile goal so it should ideally happen whether or not it is boosted by the attempt to join the EU.
However, I think quite a number of people have resigned to the opinion that the UK is simply not capable of reform, let alone at the required level.
They then externalize or project this as rejection by the EU.
Massive disruptions such as Brexit have the potential for galvanizing electoral support for change.
While Brexiters want to use this for achieving deregulation, a Rejoin movement could channel that into support for reforms.
Even if it does not look like this at the moment, I think there is a case for optimism.
Recent announcements of Labour, for example regarding distribution of governance, are steps into that direction.
And just because these processes will take time doesn't mean they will never reach their goals.
Patience might be difficult in the knowledge how rushed Brexit had been implemented.
But the consequences of that rush should be warning enough not to apply it again.
The Question is not, whether or when the EU will allow Britain back in again, the question is, whether or when will britain's establishment allow the continent to live in peace again. It's very very sad.
https://zivilist.substack.com/p/northstream-1-was-destroyed-by-a
OK, Team Biden destroyed NS-2
But once we learn who destroyed NS-1 it might become very hard for UK to rejoin EU.
https://zivilist.substack.com/p/hershs-mising-half-of-northstream
Haha, of all the theories I've heard re how the UK might Rejoin or not Rejoin, a conspiracy theory full of typos is NOT what I expected, lol.
Just check whre that P-8 might have come from (Lossiemouth, Scotland ?) its flight path and its abilities.
I can't imagine there'll be any nasty surprises on the conditions for rejoin. EHRC, Single Market, Customs Union. I guess the EU Army if it's running, and timetable to take the €.
Stuff like commitment to Ever Closer Union will be a more philisophical request.
Qualified majority voting in more areas. Agreement on tax harmonization and anti corruption/money laundering regulations.
This will be a pretty straightforward list, have no idea how palatable all of this will be to Brits, even those who voted Remain or were on the fence.
I do know the ERG/Bxt Spartans will be all but gone in one to two GEs, especially if Starmer wins big at both. The Empire nostalgists will be dead or past caring, and the vast majority of electorate will be the group who voted Remain, and those too young to vote in 2016/not even born then.
But but but...if Starmer makes a qualified success of the 2024-2028 period (will be join the Single Market after ruling it out in recent speeches?), it may be that the electorate settles, reluctantly and then path of least resistance, to a closer orbit than contemplating Rejoin, especially if Sunak completes our membership of TPP before the next election.
My prediction is that there will be a sanguine acceptance of our existence outside the EU, but natural drift to friendlier relations. And nothing more.
The "hunger" for joining will definitely depend a lot on how the relationship evolves.
I don't think a potential "sweet spot" will be reached within the next parliamentary cycle, but maybe the one afterwards
No. ECHR and supremacy of EU law are non-negotiable.
Typical clueless euroskeptic. The ECHR is not part of the EU. In fact, the British were among its founding members.
My bad on mentioning the ECHR. No need for the "typical clueless euroskeptic" comment.
My apologies. But it gets tiresome to hear the same falsehoods and untruths repeated.
What about my other points? ECHR/HRA? Supremacy of EU law? In my view those are non-negotiable from the EU perspective - and should be. Note also the UK desire to deviate from EU data protection law (about which I have written).
ECHR is not part of EU.
In reality, they will all be negotiable. Barnier, von der Leyen, Macron all realise this.
The requirements are not likely up for negotiation, especially not fundamentals such as adherence to human rights.
The time for implementation however is.
New members often have transition phases to sort out difference that are deemed solvable within an certain timeframe, e.g. 5-10 years.
I do love the take that the EU is a paragon of human rights. The EU that has negotiated for years w Libyan psychopathic Maffiosi to stop migrants leaving N. Africa for EU mainland. Strange how the EHCR that is so held up by Europhiles has nothing to say re this policy. I guess as long as you have a system where poor migrants can't get to Europe, the EHRC isn't relevant.
Convenient, that.
For an adjusted Leaver such as myself, the sooner we stop hearing mistruths like "UK illiberal EU liberal", the better.
ECHR is not part of the EU.
Wow, that's THREE times you've said this. Like you're REALLY trying to make a point, lol.
All in response to your THREE times. lol.
I don't think anybody suggested that the situation is perfect.
Just that it is pretty certain that some of the requirements are considered fundamentals, not something that will even be considered to be up for negotiation.
Not that this specific instance would ever be a problem.
The Tories might make a lot of noise to keep their voters happy, but I doubt they would end the UK's membership of the Council of Europe.
They might have purged a lot of their moderates but O doubt they have the majority support for a move like that
In reality, they will all be negotiable. Barnier, von der Leyen
These are criteria for which the UK is still fully aligned.
It has not abandoned ECHR membership nor repealed any EU influenced law.
But of course the more such alignment is broken, the more effort it will take to reestablish it.
I’d call the U.K. a flagging democracy :) Main likely conditions: join the euro? Join new defence arrangements? Absolutely: stay in ECHR and repudiate the Bill of Rights Act (if it ever gets adopted) and accept primacy of EU law. Likeliness of U.K. accepting those?
The so-called requirement to join the Euro has always been a red herring.
While each member is expected to eventually make that step, it is fundamentally a step each member needs to achieve by themselves, at their pace and through their own processes.
This can be easily seen when comparing the different paths current members of the Eurozone have taken.
For example countries that have had close alignment between their currencies for decades could move to the shared currency with little effort.
The UK, on the other hand, would likely face a "steeper hillside" and decide to prioritize other reforms for the time being.
Especially in the light that the first attempt - to be part of the Euro founding group - had failed so miserably.
It is difficult to rebuild confidence after failure but can also result in much greater focus and commitment on a new attempt.
Agreed, another appeasement red herring.
Having said that, the euro will probably not be an issue to the younger demographic -especially if we have reached/gone through parity in the meantime.
ECHR is separate from EU.
The assertion that "they won't want us back" - always seemed like a weasel straw argument. After all, how could anyone speak for the EU, let alone know the thinking of the member states ? But here, Nick has comprehensively (and hopefully finally) blown this canard out of the water.
Another variant of this is that the remorselessly spiteful EU will inevitably impose draconian conditions on the UK. But again. this doesn't stand up to any logical reasoning. The existing conditions for new members are mainly intended for fledgling (Serbia) or fragile (Turkey) democracies - who in any case all have to undergo an intensive vetting and education process. For a returning, centrally important member and historical democracy like the UK, it's inconceivable that everything wouldn't be up for negotiation - as Barnier, Macron and von der Leyen have all indicated.
Well, not comprehensively yet, given that he says he's only got views from 7 out of 27 members yet. Calling the EU "remorselessly spiteful" sounds more like Ultra Brexiter feeling that hopeless rejoiner sentiment. I mean, I guess the "staircase" thing is in operation in discussions about how we could get back in just as it was in the discussion about how much of the Single market we still wanted to be in as we were leaving.
I think it comes down to the fact that we have to get over ourselves as a country, and really come to a reckoning with our place in the world, and where is the best place for us to be as a country.
I think the concept of "draconian conditions" is a Brexiter myth.
The standard conditions will apply and no one other than Brexiters would consider them "draconian".
How close the UK will be to satisfying these conditions will largely depend on how much damage the current government can do to the existing alignment.
For example consider two situations: one where the bill to repeal all EU law by end of 2023 has been passed and one where it has not.
Yes, I would call these arguments "Brexit appeaser myths" - it's a sort of last resort canard that plays to the general sentiment that the referendum wound are so deep, the whole issue can't be brought up again in polite society. But in fact, this simply illustrates the enormous economic and geopolitical ramifications of Brexit - which by the way I think are still widely underestimated.
The big question is: “If so, under what conditions, if any?”
As marc said the conditions might change until the time when the UK decides to start the application process.
But at that time they should be pretty well know as the EU publishes them after each update.
For discussions on potential rejoin right now it would make most sense to use the current set of criteria and not speculate about how these might change in the near or mid term future.
As far as I can see there is no indication that they might change at all in that timeframe
We obviously can't know the precise conditions until we agree to re-join - and then start the negotiations.
But let's get another canard out of the way at the same time : The "conditions for new members" almost certainly won't apply to a returning and historically centrally important democracy like the UK. In particular, those "conditions" were drawn with fledgling democracies (eg Serbia) in mind.
Mark, you guys can't have it both ways.
You say UK is a "historically important democracy"
Andy Skoa intimates we're a failed state re human rights.
Fascinating this.
Which European nations have all but crushed LGB rights? Poland
Which European nations are effective autocracy with corrupted governance? Hungary
Yet the UK is accused of needing to improve our human rights ahead of Rejoining.
My sense of irony is pinging, lol.
I did not say or suggest that at all.
In fact I said the opposite.
That it is extremely unlikely that the UK will ever drop adherence to ECHR involvement.
Definitely not as long as Northern Ireland is still a part of the union.
Andy, there is a general undercurrent that we're failing in the liberal stakes. I agree our democracy is a bit frayed and in need of rejuvenation.
But I object to any inference that we somehow fall short of common decency governance and democracy.
You only have to watch the debacle of Scottish Self ID law fallout to see that democracy is very much alive and well in UK.
The arguments will come down to simple YES/NO.
€ membership.
Single Mkt Customs Union.
EU Army.
Qualified majority voting on all matters.
Tax harmonisation.
And I don't feel it's in any way certain that even Remainers will all agree wholeheartedly to these stipulations to pave way to Rejoin.
You seem to be commenting on something that has not been written in either the article or any of the comments.
While I agree that the debacle of how Westminster overrode a cross-party majority decision in an area devolved to the member level show how much democracy is lacking, but that is entirely off-topic for the blog at hand.
The rest reads like a Brexiter rant to be fair, mixing bits of reality into a list of fantasy grievances that don't exist.
So, there's been no comments here on how tenuous our democratic expression is re Rejoining? I read various comments on other Bxt blogs that Nick has written about mentioning human rights adherence in respect to us Rejoining, the inference being that there are some issues here.
If these aren't an issue, why are they mentioned, if they are, then I humbly disagree.
The criticism this is a Brexiteer rant is interesting.
I would be surprised if the entry conditions at the time of start of negotiation would not apply.
The difference between the UK and other candidates will mostly be how close the UK is to achieving them.
Although that will also depend a lot on whether the current government succeeds in their attempts to further sabotage the existing alignment.
The more they sabotage the current alignment, the more economic pain will be felt, and the more the case against Brexit becomes irrefutable.
Don't make the mistake of inferring some sort of 3D Chess ability on behalf of the likes of Rees-Mogg, Francois, Duncan Smith, etc. As Cummings once exclaimed, they are a patchily educated, parasitic and habitually lazy cabal - with no understanding of how the global economy works, and certainly without any cogent plan.
A further point on any "scorched earth" sabotage tactics between now and the election in 2025 :
This would provide Starmer with a beautiful ready-made excuse to pivot on the Single Market - within a few months of taking power : - ie "Due to Tory deliberate damage to and undermining of the existing deal alignment, it is no longer feasible to make the existing Brexit work as previously pledged". You get the picture.