How Matthew Goodwin, a Brexiter pollster and commentator, convinced me that instead of taking 25 years to rejoin the EU, it may take us less than a decade Despite being passionately anti-Brexit, I have been pessimistic about the length of time it will take us to rejoin the EU for some time now. After June 2016, I quickly came to the conclusion that a second referendum wasn’t a great idea - Brexit, sadly, had to happen. I figured then that Brexit would reveal itself as a mistake over the course of many years; a sort of slow puncture of the whole concept taking place in front of our eyes. As this happened, I predicted, more and more people would slowly realise the benefits of rejoining the European Union, particularly as younger people came of voting age. But it would be unhurried, this process, probably taking a quarter of a century at least to play out in full.
Nick, I do think you are in danger of seeing what you'd like to see. I'm an avid rejoiner and aged 60 wasn't expecting to see us rejoin in my lifetime. And the data does suggest there's a move towards rejoining. But that would surely need to be v solid - say 70% in favour and policy for all parties before the EU would consider the UK as a candidate country? We'd have to be very convincing. 10 years is about the horizon when talks and treaties might have started to ameliorate the effects of the TCA as it stands. But even as the London Mayor talks about "pragmatic debate" re the single market - we're in danger of having a conversation with ourselves. We need to have demonstrate we are trustworthy and worth the bother and we've miffed quite a few EU countries, no? I'd love it to be 10 years but I can't see it from here. May be different post general election 2024 plus a couple of year.
I mostly agree, though I think you are underestimating the need for "having a conversation with ourselves"
The danger is not so much in having that but in having it detached from reality.
Part of the core issues of Brexit is that there wasn't much (if any) conversation in the UK about it before and not even after the referendum.
Of course that was on purpose as any discussion would have shown the incompatibility of the various Brexit positions.
So I think a conversation even just among Brexiters, let alone all British, is long overdue.
However any part of the conversation that touches relationship with the EU in any form needs to held in the context of what the EU might think about these ideas.
Even just an educated guess will be better than blindly assuming they will see things exactly the same way.
My view is more of when than if. Badly phrased my end! But looking at v recent polling - around 40% of those who said they would vote Labour are leavers which, for me, makes having that conversation a risk to Labour election prospects and a lever for the Tories/Reform and others. Reading those with more knowledge than me suggests the EU will need quite a high level of assurances before considering joining. And so that conversation is probably best after the next election. And in the context of EU Member benefits perhaps?
I think it's possible that the UK could apply to rejoin in a decade or so, but I wouldn't expect the EU to accept the application for a lot longer.
The debate in the UK is still about trade and "what can we opt out of?" which misses the point of the EU: since it's inception it was a peace project which used trade to make war between members impossible; this is the reason for FOM and the Euro; they're part of the integration. It's also why the EU was so important to the peace process in NI, and why NI is a clear example of what happens without the EU. Until the UK shows it has grasped this idea and made it clear to its population, I don't think the EU will allow it back in.
For me the lowest point of the whole Faragicle was the bowing out of the European Parliiament by the rabid Brexit MEPs. To enable a situation like that being repeated wherby the EU was so insulted by vulgar behaviour is something that will not be easily forgotten. The likelihood of MEPs being elected in a newly rejoined Union would gather the most objectionable characters to stand in pro Brexit seats and take their fury with them to Brussels and repeat the cycle over again.
The practicality of having winning the EU round isn't possible in the next parliament, if the EU sees two elections come and go with Brexit supporting MPs losing in both elections then that's a good start, but if any of the parties are standing on a platform of "pragmatic Brexit" rather than an unequivocal call to rejoin, I think that might be enough to make the EU say "we'll get back to you". So 10 years is a hell of a stretch, but 15 years is much more doable.
First, somebody who's still an avid Brexiter sounds like an unreliable source, no matter how good his public speaking style. There's a reason there's only one economist (Minford) pro Brexit: to be in favour of it requires denying hard evidence.
Then he opens (as you point out) with an observation that's at odds with observed reality, and doesn't seem to give a source.
So why should we listen to an unreliable cherry-picker of data?
Second, it sounds as if you're also falling into the "British exceptionalism" trap. (IIRC Chris Grey had a good piece recently about what must change in GB politics to make rejoin realistic).
It's not a case of doing another Referendum, or one party getting elected on rejoin (which currently no big party seems to want).
It's simply that if GB went to EU and said "We'd like to rejoin", EU would say "no thanks, you don't clear any of the hurdles, we're fed up enough with populist undemocratic autocracies and with cleptocracies that ruined their economy and now want bailing out".
It's not just opt-outs on Schengen and Euro: it's lack of democracy from the ground up: for all their waxing about Magna Charta and Westminister Parliament, Brexit has shown that the people themselves don't understand Human Rights - Rights for all - as basis for democracy. British society and politics is still trapped in "Winner-loser" zero-sum mindset: either you're the master and rule, or you're the servant (loser) and get some breadcrumbs of rights, so you hate on the non-English instead of your masters.
This needs to change, both on the practical level - switch away from FPTP to representative voting, write down hard rules against corruption and treasonous conduct and then prosecute MPs for that (instead of some sex flings in the tabloid press); get rid of privilege education Eton-Oxbridge-MP pipeline, and make sure actual competence is measured; get everybody the same human rights, and do a broad education campaign for the 50+ people; install an actual social safety system instead of food banks; shut down hate press like Sun; ....
Then, once your house is in order, you can join the European project for peace through prosperity and common values.
"It's simply that if GB went to EU and said "We'd like to rejoin", EU would say "no thanks, you don't clear any of the hurdles, we're fed up enough with populist undemocratic autocracies and with cleptocracies that ruined their economy and now want bailing out"."
Ouch, but... basically yes.
A real constitution would be a very good starting point as well, with a proper voting system. It would also require a genuine division of power Under the UK system this is all but gone, so the PM and cabinet can essentially dictate ´policy and whip their tame MP's into line; the HoL is basically a retirement club for the governments chums, and the 'head of state' a rather expensive waste of space., as the last few years has demonstrated.
"if you believe what you read in the newspapers and hear on certain podcasts then you might be forgiven for thinking that the country has already decided to Re-Join the EU.”
Matthew Goodwin's assertion illustrates the tendency of Brexiters to exaggerate the threats to their wonderful project. They also claim the BBC is a hotbed of remainerism. They see dark forces and plots. It is only a small step from 'reds under the bed' paranoia.
To be fair this has historically been a favourite claim of the extreme left and right for some time, you need only look at the writings of Herbert Marcuse and his followers for left-wing versions of the same. This is why we must always be careful of populism.
Nick, it seems to me that most of the stuff that Prof Goodwin supposes are 'negative' aspects of the EU are things that were anyway ignored by the average Brexit voter at the time of the original vote but were harped on by the harpie media. It is therefore less of a surprise that when you spell these things out now that the poll results don't change by as much as you would expects. This does raise the question as to what the respondents to the poll are really voting on? Something for the next blog perhaps? Thanks for what you are doing by the way. I am avid.
Part of the point of the Schengen agreement is that it prevents one country from undercutting the rest of the union by ignoring the EU's labour and social security laws; it means that where the conditions for working people are poorest, they can expect a significant part of their workforce to move elsewhere.
Of course this is anathema to the Brexit leaders who are already showing their true colours by trying to get strikes banned and remove workers protection.
This is why they wound people up to dislike FOM; because to bring in the reforms they want, they have to make sure that they have a captive workforce.
This is a fairly old tactic: in the days of the Levellers the workers who would be most affected by the new machines were prevented from leaving the country even as their jobs were erased.
Obviously British are so special EU would be glad to have them back!
So why ask Europeans? Reality has still not arrived in Brexitland.
The first sign that a change has occurred would be if the Brits actually started to talk about what they had to offer to EU that's worth it, not what their economic advantages are.
Thanks Nick, but I will not pay a dime to learn more about the brexit folly. It's not worth it. It may finally, long after I have left this world fizzle out, but not so soon as you think.
To give you an idea why read my funny meant story about an adventure of lord John Bull.
When the users of the local pub decided that each of them had to treat each other under all circumstances as equals, lord J. Bull decided that such a rule was going too far. He was after all a lord and required the others to treat him with more respect than they did commoners. After making rude remarks towards some of the other patrons and insulting the barmaid he left the local pub in anger. He also swore never to set a foot in the establishment again. But his anger was not totally satisfied and he tried to do more harm, until the local copper, lovingly called uncle Sam by most in the neighborhood, patted him on the shoulder and asked him to tone down his anger a bit. After the calm had set in and lasted for a while Lord Bull, who behind his back was now colloquial called John Bullie, decided that he in fact missed the camaraderie at the local pub and wanted to go back on his angry decision to never set a foot in it. To his chagrin he found out that the other patrons were not so eager to let him in again. They also made it clear that he would never get his old special privileges back. Most went even further and wanted to see real guarantees that he would obey all rules and never leave again. After all, some reminded the others, the lord had earned the badge of Perfidy Albion not without a reason. Since every patron had to be satisfied with a common decision a few wanted to extract even more privileges from him. They wanted to fish unobstructed in the pond on his estate, get some firewood from his trees, or being allowed to hunt in his forest. Confronted with those demands and also facing a hefty payment for the damage he had done, lord Bull decided that he should not try any further and keep the situation as it was.
Regarding the 'penalties' of rejoining, it is a common misconception that joining the Euro would be required. As I understand it, all that is expected is a statement of intent, to work towards adopting the euro. Denmark I believe pays lip service to 'working towards' this goal , but has no intention of actually getting there.
Regarding the demographic trend towards rejoining, the big question is whether the positive pro-European sentiment (and pro-independence sentiment in Scotland) will be sustained as the young cohort ages. As people age, they tend on the whole to become less adventurous and more fearful of change, not to mention more right wing and perhaps more nervous of foreigners. (obviously there are many exceptions, we are talking about statistical trends only).
Regarding paid subscriptions, what about a group subscription your paid blog that local subgroups of the EM could take out for their members?
That's a very interesting article. Demographics is always going to be against Brexit so the numbers now are a great start. At the moment, it seems to be Remainers who are coming up with all sorts of excuses as to why it can't be done.
I think 10 years is still a tad optimistic, especially if we take "now" as the base from which to project 10 years into the future.
However, if you take 10 years as two parliamentary cycles then this becomes more realistic.
The general mood will not have swung far enough for the upcoming general election to allow either of the two main parties to consider having rejoin as part of their manifesto.
A very pro-EU government could, with respective change in public opinion, go for a lot of preparation and narrowing the gap in relations with the EU but won't realistically have a mandate to initiate a request for membership.
So in the best case scenario the government afterwards would be the first which could do that.
It might be possible for that government to conclude negotiations and run the referendum but it is definitely not a certainty.
Given the increasing number of crises neither the next government nor the one after it will have the luxury to fully concentrate on EU relations.
Obviously that is only the situation on the UK side of things and any time frame will need to take EU side of things into considerations as well.
As long as a large group of British, even if they are a minority, consider the most significant achievements of the last century in European cooperation as something "bad", the society as a whole won't look ready to be part of these cooperation efforts.
It doesn't help that decades of political neglect of informing the public about EU matters have allowed many misconceptions and myths to take hold.
Addressing these might turn out to be the most difficult obstacle to overcome, not negotiations with the EU or good numbers in polls.
Nick, I do think you are in danger of seeing what you'd like to see. I'm an avid rejoiner and aged 60 wasn't expecting to see us rejoin in my lifetime. And the data does suggest there's a move towards rejoining. But that would surely need to be v solid - say 70% in favour and policy for all parties before the EU would consider the UK as a candidate country? We'd have to be very convincing. 10 years is about the horizon when talks and treaties might have started to ameliorate the effects of the TCA as it stands. But even as the London Mayor talks about "pragmatic debate" re the single market - we're in danger of having a conversation with ourselves. We need to have demonstrate we are trustworthy and worth the bother and we've miffed quite a few EU countries, no? I'd love it to be 10 years but I can't see it from here. May be different post general election 2024 plus a couple of year.
I mostly agree, though I think you are underestimating the need for "having a conversation with ourselves"
The danger is not so much in having that but in having it detached from reality.
Part of the core issues of Brexit is that there wasn't much (if any) conversation in the UK about it before and not even after the referendum.
Of course that was on purpose as any discussion would have shown the incompatibility of the various Brexit positions.
So I think a conversation even just among Brexiters, let alone all British, is long overdue.
However any part of the conversation that touches relationship with the EU in any form needs to held in the context of what the EU might think about these ideas.
Even just an educated guess will be better than blindly assuming they will see things exactly the same way.
My view is more of when than if. Badly phrased my end! But looking at v recent polling - around 40% of those who said they would vote Labour are leavers which, for me, makes having that conversation a risk to Labour election prospects and a lever for the Tories/Reform and others. Reading those with more knowledge than me suggests the EU will need quite a high level of assurances before considering joining. And so that conversation is probably best after the next election. And in the context of EU Member benefits perhaps?
I think it's possible that the UK could apply to rejoin in a decade or so, but I wouldn't expect the EU to accept the application for a lot longer.
The debate in the UK is still about trade and "what can we opt out of?" which misses the point of the EU: since it's inception it was a peace project which used trade to make war between members impossible; this is the reason for FOM and the Euro; they're part of the integration. It's also why the EU was so important to the peace process in NI, and why NI is a clear example of what happens without the EU. Until the UK shows it has grasped this idea and made it clear to its population, I don't think the EU will allow it back in.
For me the lowest point of the whole Faragicle was the bowing out of the European Parliiament by the rabid Brexit MEPs. To enable a situation like that being repeated wherby the EU was so insulted by vulgar behaviour is something that will not be easily forgotten. The likelihood of MEPs being elected in a newly rejoined Union would gather the most objectionable characters to stand in pro Brexit seats and take their fury with them to Brussels and repeat the cycle over again.
The practicality of having winning the EU round isn't possible in the next parliament, if the EU sees two elections come and go with Brexit supporting MPs losing in both elections then that's a good start, but if any of the parties are standing on a platform of "pragmatic Brexit" rather than an unequivocal call to rejoin, I think that might be enough to make the EU say "we'll get back to you". So 10 years is a hell of a stretch, but 15 years is much more doable.
First, somebody who's still an avid Brexiter sounds like an unreliable source, no matter how good his public speaking style. There's a reason there's only one economist (Minford) pro Brexit: to be in favour of it requires denying hard evidence.
Then he opens (as you point out) with an observation that's at odds with observed reality, and doesn't seem to give a source.
So why should we listen to an unreliable cherry-picker of data?
Second, it sounds as if you're also falling into the "British exceptionalism" trap. (IIRC Chris Grey had a good piece recently about what must change in GB politics to make rejoin realistic).
It's not a case of doing another Referendum, or one party getting elected on rejoin (which currently no big party seems to want).
It's simply that if GB went to EU and said "We'd like to rejoin", EU would say "no thanks, you don't clear any of the hurdles, we're fed up enough with populist undemocratic autocracies and with cleptocracies that ruined their economy and now want bailing out".
It's not just opt-outs on Schengen and Euro: it's lack of democracy from the ground up: for all their waxing about Magna Charta and Westminister Parliament, Brexit has shown that the people themselves don't understand Human Rights - Rights for all - as basis for democracy. British society and politics is still trapped in "Winner-loser" zero-sum mindset: either you're the master and rule, or you're the servant (loser) and get some breadcrumbs of rights, so you hate on the non-English instead of your masters.
This needs to change, both on the practical level - switch away from FPTP to representative voting, write down hard rules against corruption and treasonous conduct and then prosecute MPs for that (instead of some sex flings in the tabloid press); get rid of privilege education Eton-Oxbridge-MP pipeline, and make sure actual competence is measured; get everybody the same human rights, and do a broad education campaign for the 50+ people; install an actual social safety system instead of food banks; shut down hate press like Sun; ....
Then, once your house is in order, you can join the European project for peace through prosperity and common values.
But this will take longer than a few years.
"It's simply that if GB went to EU and said "We'd like to rejoin", EU would say "no thanks, you don't clear any of the hurdles, we're fed up enough with populist undemocratic autocracies and with cleptocracies that ruined their economy and now want bailing out"."
Ouch, but... basically yes.
A real constitution would be a very good starting point as well, with a proper voting system. It would also require a genuine division of power Under the UK system this is all but gone, so the PM and cabinet can essentially dictate ´policy and whip their tame MP's into line; the HoL is basically a retirement club for the governments chums, and the 'head of state' a rather expensive waste of space., as the last few years has demonstrated.
"if you believe what you read in the newspapers and hear on certain podcasts then you might be forgiven for thinking that the country has already decided to Re-Join the EU.”
Matthew Goodwin's assertion illustrates the tendency of Brexiters to exaggerate the threats to their wonderful project. They also claim the BBC is a hotbed of remainerism. They see dark forces and plots. It is only a small step from 'reds under the bed' paranoia.
Great piece Nick, thank you.
It’s the establishment of the betrayal narrative they always require to justify the next grievance.
Playground politics full of schoolboy errors.
To be fair this has historically been a favourite claim of the extreme left and right for some time, you need only look at the writings of Herbert Marcuse and his followers for left-wing versions of the same. This is why we must always be careful of populism.
There is a massive assumption about joining the EU, namely that they want us back. That isn't going to happen for decades.
Nick, it seems to me that most of the stuff that Prof Goodwin supposes are 'negative' aspects of the EU are things that were anyway ignored by the average Brexit voter at the time of the original vote but were harped on by the harpie media. It is therefore less of a surprise that when you spell these things out now that the poll results don't change by as much as you would expects. This does raise the question as to what the respondents to the poll are really voting on? Something for the next blog perhaps? Thanks for what you are doing by the way. I am avid.
One of the strangest things in this discussion is why all these improvements can even be used as a `negative`?
Lets take the Schengen Agreement, for example.
It allows one to travel between signatory countries without having to go through passport control at every border crossing.
Without Schengen a travel on the Eurostar from London to Amsterdam could well have to do four passport checks (three if the UK does no exit check).
What negative aspect do people see of not doing that and avoiding the potential delays?
Some kind of need to show off their passport as often as necessary?
And don't the UK and Ireland have a similar arrangement? Since like a century ago?
Why deny yourself the same convenience when going to France or the Netherlands?
I am old enough to remember pre-Schengen travel out of and into Austria to see no value at all in having that back.
Part of the point of the Schengen agreement is that it prevents one country from undercutting the rest of the union by ignoring the EU's labour and social security laws; it means that where the conditions for working people are poorest, they can expect a significant part of their workforce to move elsewhere.
Of course this is anathema to the Brexit leaders who are already showing their true colours by trying to get strikes banned and remove workers protection.
This is why they wound people up to dislike FOM; because to bring in the reforms they want, they have to make sure that they have a captive workforce.
This is a fairly old tactic: in the days of the Levellers the workers who would be most affected by the new machines were prevented from leaving the country even as their jobs were erased.
You are confusing Freedom of Movement of People and the Schengen Agreement.
Schengen is only about the removal of passport checks when crossing from one member country into another.
It does not convey any rights such as residency or working rights.
It applies to any person in a Schengen country, not just citizens.
It gets mixed up with "FOM" a lot but is entirely orthogonal.
You're quite correct: sloppy communication from me there...
Have you asked the EU if they would take you back?
Obviously British are so special EU would be glad to have them back!
So why ask Europeans? Reality has still not arrived in Brexitland.
The first sign that a change has occurred would be if the Brits actually started to talk about what they had to offer to EU that's worth it, not what their economic advantages are.
Thanks Nick, but I will not pay a dime to learn more about the brexit folly. It's not worth it. It may finally, long after I have left this world fizzle out, but not so soon as you think.
To give you an idea why read my funny meant story about an adventure of lord John Bull.
When the users of the local pub decided that each of them had to treat each other under all circumstances as equals, lord J. Bull decided that such a rule was going too far. He was after all a lord and required the others to treat him with more respect than they did commoners. After making rude remarks towards some of the other patrons and insulting the barmaid he left the local pub in anger. He also swore never to set a foot in the establishment again. But his anger was not totally satisfied and he tried to do more harm, until the local copper, lovingly called uncle Sam by most in the neighborhood, patted him on the shoulder and asked him to tone down his anger a bit. After the calm had set in and lasted for a while Lord Bull, who behind his back was now colloquial called John Bullie, decided that he in fact missed the camaraderie at the local pub and wanted to go back on his angry decision to never set a foot in it. To his chagrin he found out that the other patrons were not so eager to let him in again. They also made it clear that he would never get his old special privileges back. Most went even further and wanted to see real guarantees that he would obey all rules and never leave again. After all, some reminded the others, the lord had earned the badge of Perfidy Albion not without a reason. Since every patron had to be satisfied with a common decision a few wanted to extract even more privileges from him. They wanted to fish unobstructed in the pond on his estate, get some firewood from his trees, or being allowed to hunt in his forest. Confronted with those demands and also facing a hefty payment for the damage he had done, lord Bull decided that he should not try any further and keep the situation as it was.
Thanks for this piece. Several points occur.
Regarding the 'penalties' of rejoining, it is a common misconception that joining the Euro would be required. As I understand it, all that is expected is a statement of intent, to work towards adopting the euro. Denmark I believe pays lip service to 'working towards' this goal , but has no intention of actually getting there.
Regarding the demographic trend towards rejoining, the big question is whether the positive pro-European sentiment (and pro-independence sentiment in Scotland) will be sustained as the young cohort ages. As people age, they tend on the whole to become less adventurous and more fearful of change, not to mention more right wing and perhaps more nervous of foreigners. (obviously there are many exceptions, we are talking about statistical trends only).
Regarding paid subscriptions, what about a group subscription your paid blog that local subgroups of the EM could take out for their members?
Sweden, not Denmark.
Denmark has an opt-out but pegs their currency to the Euro.
Essentially Euro in all but name and legal tender.
Pretty pointless but they also have their loony nationalists to deal with
That's a very interesting article. Demographics is always going to be against Brexit so the numbers now are a great start. At the moment, it seems to be Remainers who are coming up with all sorts of excuses as to why it can't be done.
I think 10 years is still a tad optimistic, especially if we take "now" as the base from which to project 10 years into the future.
However, if you take 10 years as two parliamentary cycles then this becomes more realistic.
The general mood will not have swung far enough for the upcoming general election to allow either of the two main parties to consider having rejoin as part of their manifesto.
A very pro-EU government could, with respective change in public opinion, go for a lot of preparation and narrowing the gap in relations with the EU but won't realistically have a mandate to initiate a request for membership.
So in the best case scenario the government afterwards would be the first which could do that.
It might be possible for that government to conclude negotiations and run the referendum but it is definitely not a certainty.
Given the increasing number of crises neither the next government nor the one after it will have the luxury to fully concentrate on EU relations.
Obviously that is only the situation on the UK side of things and any time frame will need to take EU side of things into considerations as well.
As long as a large group of British, even if they are a minority, consider the most significant achievements of the last century in European cooperation as something "bad", the society as a whole won't look ready to be part of these cooperation efforts.
It doesn't help that decades of political neglect of informing the public about EU matters have allowed many misconceptions and myths to take hold.
Addressing these might turn out to be the most difficult obstacle to overcome, not negotiations with the EU or good numbers in polls.