This article forms part of the Trust’s new project Brexit Can Be Undone, for which we are currently fundraising. Please click here to support this project.
“There is no case for rejoining. What I want to see now is not just Brexit done in the sense that we’re technically out of the EU, I want to make it work.”
Sir Keir Starmer MP, BBC Radio Newcastle interview, 14 February 2022.
Acceptance is growing that Brexit is a source of considerable harm to the UK. Even among supporters of leaving who remain committed to their cause, there is recognition of serious problems connected to this project. The most malign outcomes to have manifested themselves include[1]:
- The loss for the UK population of the numerous rights and advantages that came with European citizenship;
- Compromising of the international credibility and external influence of the UK, and increasing isolation from long-term allies;
- Domestic political disruption and the rise of populist tendencies at UK governmental level;
- Destabilisation in the UK constitution;
- Increased tension and uncertainty for Northern Ireland and the Peace Process;
- The introduction of barriers to trade in goods and services with the EU, including increased regulatory burdens for business;
- Contributing to or restricting the ability of the UK to respond to various economic challenges such as inflation and labour shortages;
- Challenges for the UK financial; creative; research; agricultural; fishing and other sectors;
It is hard to conceive of a more damaging single decision taken in the UK or any other comparable state. These harms, moreover, are not one-off events, but cumulative in nature. While Brexit persists, they will continue to grow. More difficulties can be expected to join them – for instance, more barriers to the operation of the UK financial sector; and the impact of the delayed full controls on imports from the EU, if and when they are imposed. Relations with the EU and its member states, and perhaps the United States are set to deteriorate further as a consequence of the approach being taken to the Northern Ireland Protocol. Such a turn of events would entail more political damage, and possibly economic harm, were a trade dispute to develop. Furthermore, significant tangible benefits that might offset these detriments are lacking. Some claims – about vaccines and enhanced autonomy in foreign policy – are misleading; while others – involving, for instance, imperial measurements – are simply risible.
Key arguments offered on the losing side of the 23 June 2016 European Union referendum, then, have proved correct. Yet while significant portions of the public at present see Brexit as not providing desirable outcomes, the idea of the UK rejoining is not yet an option on the mainstream political agenda. It should be. Those who supported remaining should see that which has transpired since 2016 as confirming that their judgement was sound; and accordingly maintain or resume their support for the UK being a part of the EU. There are various criticisms which advocacy of rejoining is likely to meet, including from former remainers. They include that it is an extreme position; that it is backward-looking; that it will revive the damaging political instability of the post-referendum period; that it is unrealistic in domestic political terms; that it is a proposition unacceptable to the EU; and that to reverse the outcome of the vote of 2016 would be undemocratic. Opponents of a rejoin programme offer a series of broadly incompatible courses of action, for example that we should focus on maximising the supposed potential advantages of Brexit; or that we should align more closely with the EU in some respects. They might – if from a former remain background – suggest that rejoining could be possible at some indeterminate point in the future, but that we should wait until circumstances become more propitious, perhaps with some gentle nudging to assist such a development.
But rejoining is the only satisfactory means of addressing the manifest problems caused by Brexit. The attainment of this goal presents a substantial challenge, as one might expect of an important task. But failing to pursue it is not a means of avoiding problems, which mount around us as Brexit continues to play out. Claims that re-entry into the EU is not a practical option are in a sense self-fulfilling. A key obstacle to this objective is that those who might seek to achieve it are dissuaded by the perception that such a programme is doomed to fail. Recognising that such predictions need not be correct is a means of overcoming them. There may not be a precise map or timetable for the rejoining of the EU. But it is clear that the process can only begin once people openly acknowledge the necessity of this objective, and urge others to combine with them. When faced with growing harm, the time to commence reversing the action that has caused it is now.
Notes
[1] Supporters of leaving would presumably not acknowledge all of these problems.
In 2022, the Federal Trust launched a new project: Brexit Can Be Undone.
The Federal Trust receives no public funding and we have therefore decided to undertake a crowdfunding appeal to finance our new study on how “Brexit Can Be Undone”:
Please click on this link to contribute to our funding appeal:
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/brexit-can-be-undone
We are grateful for any donations, large or small. Any contribution will make a difference.
Click here for other ways of donating to the Trust.
A fundamental right in a democratic state is the ability to vote. An estimated 6 million Brits living abroad had no ability to vote for or against Brexit. Those of us still living in EU can now no longer vote in UK elections and no longer vote in host country elections .and no longer have an automatic right to reside in our chosen EU country or buy and sell property in our EU host country. Overseas property owners in contrast can buy and sell London and UK properties with no legal problem and they can retain their anonimity by using the offshore trust and company route to ownership. Perhaps the true purpose of Brexit was to ensure the destabilisation of Europe , the secret retention of land property and assets ownership with the promise to reduce immigration. The promises that are never kept fall on heads that do not believe those promises nor any more promises that come from the same source. Expat Brits are the new age refugees and migrants living in the promised land of a combined Europe. with no personal rights and are thereby stateless.
I have often wondered what the series of events are that would be needed to “reverse” Brexit, not re-joining, more nullifying the referendum.
I don’t for one minute think it will happen, more could it technically should everything fall in to place at the right time.
Something like:
New government comes in to power
Re negotiating the “deal” we have to allow the EU courts to have final say as before to gain some better terms and improve trade
Sue the former government and Brexit supporting MP’s for running the referendum under a known and conscious lie
Outcome of case is the EU courts nullify the referendum result under the understanding a new referendum is held.
Pending the new result we ether stay out of the EU or we go back in to the EU under our 2016 terms and benefits.
I’m 99.99999% sure this won’t happen as for a starter Labour are to worried about loosing the next election rather than acting for the good of our children.
To rejoin would mean on lesser terms than we had before .If the argument to remain could not be made positive when we were members it would be a hard sell. To go back.
In a time of Populism why would our European Neighbours have us back .
What would Britain bring to their party except continual strife on opt outs and arguing over payments.
I believe our European neighbours are well shot of a spoilt child and we have made our bed we better lye in it. And the European project can progress with the anchor removed
It is very easy to suggest rejoining the EU – but what the public needs clarity on is what the EU’s end game actually is. What does it actually want to become ? What does “ever closer union” actually mean ? For too long theses crucial issues have been ignored.
In 1992 it was ironically John Major – one of the most vocal opponents of Brexit – as UK Prime Minister, who ruled out giving the British public a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. That treaty fundamentally changed the nature of the soon-to-be EU from a trading block to a political construct. Michael Heseltine – having ousted PM Thatcher – was part of his cabinet. He is another arch opponent of Brexit. It astounds me that these 2 never accept any responsibility for the rise of UKIP / Farage when their very denial of a referendum which in my opinion would have seen Maastricht rejected for a more watered-down acceptable version, is exactly what spurred more rabid euroscepticism in the UK.
What would any return to the EU look like ? As a remain voter – albeit one who believes that Freedom of Movement needs serious reform – for example obliging migrants to have a job to come too first rather than arriving for 90 days to “look for work” – i can most assuredly say that any future EU membership which involves a commitment to adopt the euro is something i would never vote for. Schengen is a no-no for me – the EU simply cannot control its borders, we should have every right to control ours, albeit the current UK government has singularly failed to do just that post Brexit. But these are just factors which would affect any vote i personally might cast in a future referendum.
The crux of the matter is this – given all the previous opt-puts the UK secured, it was clear that the our notion of what the EU should be differs enormously from that of many continental Europeans. What benefit would a return to the EU bring both sides ? Neither side can honestly say it ever fully understood the other’s position, so it’s hard to see how any reconciliation can take place until that becomes a possibility. That won’t happen with the current Tory government. It’s hard not to think that had the UK been a net EU budgetary recipient rather than contributor we’d have been told many years ago to either get with the programme or get out the door.
From a personal perspective, before I could cast any vote in favour of rejoin in a hypothetical future referendum, the EU would need to have a clear road map for its future laid out in its treaties that it is a club of individual sovereign states with NO federalist ambitions for a United States of Europe, fair reform of Freedom of Movement to reflect the inevitable migration from east to west likely to be seen from the current batch of candidate states, and effective external border controls to deal with uncontrolled illegal migration into the continent.
I don’t fancy the chances for any of this in the short term at least.
When Labour lost the 2010 election, it was stated that the outgoing government had left the country bankrupt. This was a blatant lie, but was not countered by a strong Labour response. Since then, the Labour Party has offered weak resistance to the Conservatives, no matter what diversion, lie, political mismanagement, etc., the governing Conservative Party has forced on the British public.
A reappraising of, and a renewed support for, again becoming a member of the EU, and to oppose Brexit, is supported by a majority of Labour members, as well as by a large majority of the other major parties – except the Tories (it would be interesting to have a poll of Tory voters to have a up-to-date idea of where their support lies).
British democracy will continue to be ill-served by a Conservative government that uses the Brexit vote as a major reason for the introduction of its harmful policies – particularly those working people, and not only in the north of England – who gave their support for a Party and a government that has proved unfit for purpose.
Brexit should be a ongoing discussion, as with any policy introduced and for which legislation shapes the face of the country.
European Unity is the only acceptable goal of politics. Any objection is merely ignorant populism. A future Lab/SNP/LibDem government should use emergency powers to hand our armed forces and currency to EU control, and then seek to rejoin via a confirmatory referendum, with a clear message of repeat referenda until the right conclusion is drawn.
I am in favour of the UK rejoining the EU. On a practical level though this is not something that can be done on one go. As a nation we need to, (thank you Alexander De Phefil Boris Johnson), reestablish trust with our neighbours. A step to do this will also make rejoining, even with an off the shelf arrangement, not with the arrangement that saw us with better terms and conditions than anyone else in the EU, politically far more acceptable.
First step: Rejoin the Single Market and Customs Union. The instant, (in political terms), impacts would see benefits for everyone. lower food prices, lower fuel prices, shorter queues at airports on holidays, better job stability, a general improvement of life in this country. Any political party that manages this is likely to have a far greater chance of reelection. Funny that.
That gives us the opportunity to educate the public on the benefits of EU membership, as well as the democratic nature of the EU. This was one of the greatest lies perpetuated by the British press and politicians, that somehow the EU was “undemocratic”. This lie needs to be exposed for what it is.
It also gives time for the groundwork to be laid for the acceptance or the conditions of EU membership that some may find less palatable, converting to the Euro, (although there are benefits to the EU for the UK retaining a strengthening pound), or greater political unity with the rest of Europe.
A period in the EEA as a “rules taker” will make rejoining as a “rules maker” far more acceptable to everyone.
It would also be worth looking at making some changes to our representation with the EU on rejoining, for example, making the UK commissioner to the EU an elected position rather than an appointed one.
Anyway, it’s just a thought.
I was born in Britain, raised in the USA and reside on the mainland of Europe. My perception is that England would be welcome to rejoin under the same conditions as Germany, Spain, France or Italy. THe EU is probable 20% stronger with GB on the inside. I believe that the 27 know this and will be happy to have the Brits back on board!
The footnote to the list of 8 outcomes is important imv. Leavers are likely to take a different view from the Author regarding the less tangible ones eg. “increasing isolation from long term allies”. To an extent that is a matter of opinion and we know that the UK is split roughly 50:50 on Europe (was in 1975 and again in 2016) therefore I would suggest we focus on issues where there is evidence of real harm especially to our economy (perhaps the last 4 items on the list) rather than trying to win over the half of the population whose ideology isn’t going to change
My rights as a European citizen were confiscated on a corrupt vote and the say so of just 27% of the British people.
For Britain to rejoin the EU members must have confidence that Britain is both a democracy and committed to European Unity. EU membership cannot happen without demonstrable change in Britain’s corrupt political system:
PR, a written constitution, and an elected second chamber are likely to be pre-requisites to candidacy..
In light of the Tiverton and Wakefield by-elections, where tactical voting seems to have been widespread, I am now wondering, against what I posted on 19 June, whether Rejoiners would in fact be better advised to encourage tactical anti-Conservative voting rather than fielding candidates of their own. For it occurs to me that nothing can happen by way of undoing Brexit until and unless the Conservatives are removed from office. So this has to be the first task. Second, if we were able to achieve a minority Labour government, with Starmer’s feet held to the fire by more pro-European parties insisting he shift from his disgraceful “make-Brexit-work” position as the price for keeping him in office, then we might, as Rejoiners, feel able to begin to be somewhat hopeful. What do others think?
Two points:
1. The public in general, are ignorant of the benefits of EU membership, and confused as to how it really operates. For instance, it doesn’t understand the capability of the state to limit freedom of movement, where it is being abused.
2. We need to acknowledge that it was a fraudulent election, funded by both dark money, Russian Money, and nefarious practices, with the overall objective to split the Western Alliance, as Russia prepared to move in on Ukraine and people practising Tax Avoidance, wanted to defeat the introduction of new EU tax Rules in the UK. It was non-binding referendum, so the result could be put aside, without any democratic deficit. For a binding referendum, a simple majority would not suffice, and much higher pass rate would and should have been mandated. For the Government to abide by the result was the true abuse of Democracy and we all suffer because of it.
Agree entirely. We need to be clear about the harms of Brexit and the benefits of rejoining. I suspect Labour’s hesitation about supporting this view is based not just on fear of upsetting the red wall, but also that any new government elected on a manifesto of rejoining would face the humiliation of seeing its bid to do so rejected time and again by the EU. By the time they came to the end of their first Parliamentary term they would have disappointed the pro-Europeans by having achieved nothing, and the anti-Europeans would remain angry with them for having tried in the first place
We R3joiners need to be gearing ourselves up NOW for the next general election, and that is, preparing ourselves to field Rejoin candidates in at least the marginal constituencies — taking advantage of the considerable power the electoral system gives to small parties to influence public policy by taking votes from the leading candidates and thereby influencing election outcomes. This is what UKIP demonstrated so dramatically at the election of 2015.: Cameron wasn’t expected to win and assumed he wouldn’t have to deliver on his referendum promise. Ironically, it was because UKIP also ate into the Labour vote that he DID win …. with the result that we all know about.
‘Remainers’ should be no less determined to rejoin the EU than the [many fewer] losers of the 1975 referendum were to reverse that decision. When Farage expected to lose the 2016 referendum, he said a 52/48 result would be “unfinished business”. Now it’s unfinished business for Rejoiners.
It is no use dealing with this problem with generalities . The general public need to be educated. On the economic front, they must be provided with statistical evidence, sector by sector of the economy.
. They must realise that the UK has in fact introduced trade sanctions on itself as far as the Single Market and Customs Union are concerned.
As for the repercussions on the UK at the geopolitical level are concerned, these must be spelt out and many examples exist in recent months of the damage being done to the UK and its reputation.
AS for the criticism that to reverse the decision to leave the EU would be undemocratic, since when has such a mega decision been taken by a majority of 2% of eligible voters ( 37% Leave, 35% Remain ?