For several years the Brexit elephant sat quietly in a corner of Westminster, ignored by politicians who hoped it would eventually wander away. Instead, it has stood up, stretched its legs and begun stomping through the corridors of power once again.
“Rejoin,” Brexit was a “catastrophic mistake,” declared wannabe prime minister Wes Streeting.
Not so fast, said other main contender Andy Burnham, he hoped Britain would rejoin “in my lifetime” (Burnham is 56), but feared that any sudden rush to rejoin would further divide an already divided country.
Former PM Tony Blair then entered the fray with his 6,000-word essay. The former staunch Remainer opposed a quick application to return to the European fold. Instead, Britain should concentrate on rebuilding its economy and repairing relations with Brussels.
The Liberal Democrats remain the most pro-European party. But even they are focused more on a gradual progression—a return to the Customs Union by the end of this decade and practical moves towards deeper cooperation and integration.
The Conservatives, Reform and the new far-right party Restore, are simply against anything that smacks of improved relations with Brussels.
But what about the Europeans? They opposed Britain leaving, but they do they want Britain back?
In many respects, Britain is quite a catch for the EU, especially as the Ukraine War and the rise of China has forced it to focus increasingly on security issues. Britain has Europe’s largest navy with 450,000 tons under the Union Jack. France is just behind but current UK defense plans will put it well ahead by 2040.
Then there is the fact that Britain is a nuclear power. President Emmanuel Macron has talked about extending the French nuclear umbrella to other European countries. Such pledges would be more effective if they included the British deterrent.
Britain is also a G7 country and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The international body is declining in importance, but a permanent seat on the Security Council still carries a lot of diplomatic weight which could be used to the benefit of EU policies.
But strategic value alone does not guarantee a warm welcome. For many European leaders the central question is not what Britain brings to the table, but whether Britain has truly decided to remain seated there.
Many European diplomats argue that Britain was never more than a half-hearted member of the European club. It expended most if its effort towards blocking moves towards federation and a European defense force. The UK also refused to join either the Euro or the Schengen Agreement and was constantly demanding rebates on its contributions.
Since Britain’s departure, the EU has been able to move forward across a broad front of federalisation that would have been impossible if a British prime minister had been sitting on the European Council.
It is likely that a second application for EU membership would involve the UK accepting Schengen and the Euro. As for the budget rebate, that would have to become a thing of the distant past.
But more importantly, Britain would have to address the EU’s fear that Britain would join again only to leave again if the going got tough. Brussels would almost certainly insist that any agreement to rejoin was endorsed by all the major political parties. This could only happen if the Liberal Democrats won an overwhelming majority in parliament; or the One Nation wing of the Conservatives took control of that party or Reform and Restore disappeared from the British political scene as fast as they materialised.
The above political scenarios are highly unlikely. The fact is that any British moves back towards Europe will involve confidence-building measures on both sides of the English Channel. They are already happening. Britain is committed to rejoining the Erasmus programme in 2027. The Horizon Agreement which facilitated cross-channel scientific cooperation has been restored. And perhaps, most importantly of all, Britain and the EU are collaborating closely over Ukraine.
The road back to Europe will not begin with accession negotiations. It will begin with trust. Rejoining the Union is not a matter of signing a form and recovering a lost membership card. It is the reconstruction of a relationship damaged by a decade of acrimony and mutual suspicion. Before Britain can re-enter the European house, it must first convince its neighbours that it has no intention of slamming the door a second time.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Cameron Thomas was arrested on suspicion of controlling and coercive behaviour and assault
A bumper set of of council and Parliamentary by-elections
Makerfield: we can breathe again.
Brexit has cut trade in almost every sector of the UK economy
Tristan Ward
Tristan Ward
David Sparrow
Jeff
13 Comments
Might be a small point, but, the Royal Navy sails under the White Ensign not the Union Jack.
As for the Lib Dems, a bit more enthusiasm for rejoining the EU by Sir Edward would be both welcome and distinctive. Prevarication wins no votes.
I was recently reading Rory Stewart’s account of the effect Brexit and the loss of EU subsidy has had on Cumbrian sheep farming, the environment and communities. Andy Burnham may not want to further divide an already divided country, but we should never forget that the divide is between those who look at hard facts, economic data and business reality, and those who rely on nationalistic fervour and the vague concept of “sovereignty”. We should not be afraid of reopening this debate. Posterity will thank us.
If its re-opened, I think it should be left to parliament decide with the issue before the public in a general election. Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Its people elect their representatives to scrutinise prospective legislation on their behalf. Referenda are a political cop-out.
Chris Cory,
There never was an EU subsidy.
From memory, I think Britain paid annually, about £19 billion EU membership fee. The following year we got about £11 billion *EU funding*. In short, they gave us our own British money back and had the audacity to call it *EU funding*.
If that concept is a struggle to understand, then please send me a £20 pound note, and I will send you a £10 pound note by return with a better explanation.
Referenda are a political cop-out
Referendums have their uses, and the best one is as what’s been called the ‘people’s veto’: a last chance for the electorate to stop a proposed large change to the constitutional settlement.
This is why countries like the Republic of Ireland require changes to the constitution to be put to a referendum before they take effect.
If politicans really do believe that, after they have concluded the negotiations, that their proposed course of action would have broad electoral support, then they should not fear putting it before the people for a final verdict. Indeed they should welcome doing so, as an overwhelming majority in a referendum would make it far harder, politically, for a later Parliament to overturn.
If this principle had been held to and there had been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, then there never would have been a Brexit: either the treaty would have been rejected and so we would have stayed members on the old terms, which nobody objected to; or the referendum would have succeeded and the ‘leave’ campaign would never have got off the ground because remainers could have pointed out that we signed up for the ‘deeper’ EU. Whereas because the only referendum had been on the 1970s deal, which could credibly have been portrayed as a vote in favour of economic union only with no political element, ‘leave’ could say that the people had never given consent for that change.
The problem with that route, Tom, is that it would be a huge risk for the EU to accept an application for joining via a party winning a general election. If you’ve still got opposition parties vehemently opposed, you’d need a referendum with a majority in favor. Also, as outlined in the article, Schengen and the Euro would make a yes vote almost impossible.
@ Tom Morgan. Sheep farmers were beneficiaries of the CAP, and received subsidies that made up a significant portion of their income. You have shifted the debate and started talking about the total sums of money given and received by the UK. Thats a different argument and far more complex one. You may be right that we were paying a fee for the pleasure of being a member of the EU, but if the end result of leaving is that we have lost out on trading and other opportunities, then perhaps that fee was well worth it. According to figures from the House of Commons Library, the UK Government is losing £90 bn a year in tax revenues as a result of our leaving the EU. And the payments to farmers, which Brexiteers promised would be continued after we left the EU have NOT been replaced. Another broken promise. I have no difficulty understanding your argument. I won’t be sending you £20 as falacious arguments are free on the Reform website.
> Britain has Europe’s largest navy with 450,000 tons
The Royal Navy may well have the largest tonnage in Europe but the historian Mark Felton points out that it cannot recruit and retain sailors. The RN cannot put a lot to sea as the government has run down navy careers. RFA sailors has been on pay freeze since 2010 (austerity). This is a huge market signal to employees to leave. Until this is reversed the RN is on a glide slope down.
@Chris Cory, you make the key point about the benefits of membership even in financial terms far outweighing the cost.
@Tom Bailey, you make the false argument so often heard in the lead up to the referendum; false as Chris Cory says. At the time we paid in about £15bn, received about £10bn but according to the OBR at the time of the referendum we got well over £40bn in trade and government got a healthy proportion of that in taxes.
I meant £40bn EXTRA in trade and government got extra tax.
It was wrong to leave the EU especially when they were willing to negotiate for us to stay, but the EU we left is not the same EU now and re-joining would probably see us come back with less influence and special treatment than we once had.
All this just to say that I appreciate an article which gives space to the complexities and potential cons of re-joining despite this being a pro-EU space and, i infer, the writer being pro-EU too.
In British English, it is “defence”, not “defense”.
The return debate reveals a number of defects in our political landscape that are hindering our early rejoining. Our electoral system is possibly the most important. Under it our governance pivots from one extreme to the other making our commitment and hence the eu’s welcome of us harder. More generally we must forge a better national concensus around certain issues such as the economy so that we can more easily make these major issues. More people need to understand that we cannot do many of the things we would like to without a stronger, greener economy. The need for a credible defence stategy is another and would be made easier by rejoining.