I appreciated Gareth McAleer’s article in Lib Dem Voice on the economic power-up to be had from rejoining the EU, but while I support his desire to rejoin I think a different approach will be more effective.
Economic arguments are always difficult and precision hard to achieve. As the saying goes, an economist is someone who if you ask for a telephone number gives you an estimate. It would be better to say that rejoining the single market will be of obvious economic benefit and leave others to fill in the billions. The alternative view, the Boris Johnson idea that leaving the EU gives us the freedom to trade with faraway countries, is a delusion. Geographical proximity still matters in the twenty-first century. There may be some who dislike being moored to Europe and think they can roam the open seas for trade deals, as others in previous centuries sought an overseas empire, but it makes no economic sense.
On the other hand, the argument that the UK gains so much economically by being inside the EU has always been difficult, because of the way we got into the European Economic Community in the first place. After two vetoes from de Gaulle in the 1960s we finally joined in 1973, precisely the year when the post war boom came to an end (partly because of a huge spike in oil prices caused by war in the Middle East – a familiar pattern). Understandably, people linked the economic troubles of the 1970s with ‘joining the market.’ We also joined at a time when the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy had been set in stone. Whatever their virtues, neither policy benefited the UK financially and it ended up a net contributor to the EU budget. Hence all those wrangles about the British Budget Question and Mrs Thatcher saying: ‘we want our money back.’ All this made it much more difficult than it should have been to argue that the UK benefited economically from membership.
These issues will not go away if we apply to rejoin. It’s worth remembering that a country can join only if existing members are unanimous in their support. We should not presume that all 27 will just clap their hands and welcome us back. There may be conditions that are unpopular in the UK. For instance, it might be said that as a ‘new’ member we should be required to join the eurozone (which now has 21 members). The 180 billion a year power-up may have to come with strings attached.
I’m in favour of rejoining, but my reasons are overwhelmingly political rather than economic, as they were for Edward Heath, the only truly pro-European Prime Minister (yes, for all his faults in other policy spheres!) we’ve ever had. He’d been in Germany in the 1930s, experienced the awful mesmerising power a fascist demagogue could exercise, opposed the Munich agreement, fought in the war, went into Parliament after the war and made his maiden speech on Europe, encouraging support for the Coal and Steel Community. He always saw joining the EEC primarily in political terms.
Later expansion of the EEC/EU was also deeply political, whether it involved the end of dictatorships in Greece, Spain and Portugal or the end of the Cold War and the entry of former satellites of the Soviet Union who spoke of their ‘return to Europe.’
Today the political case is made overwhelming by Russian aggression in Ukraine, not to mention Trump’s antics. The UK needs to be working with EU countries to develop a common defence policy. Would the UK take seriously President Macron’s suggestion in 2018 that we should move towards a common European army? The EU contains many very rich countries whose defence spending taken together far exceeds that of Russia, but most of it is spent at the national level only, with incredibly wasteful results. The UK and other countries talk about spending more on defence all the time, but spending in a more efficient manner is more important. The irony is that if resources were properly pooled among the EU countries and the UK, then defence budgets could go down while producing more effective results. This is important at a time when there is so much talk of an urgent need to spend billions more.
The EU grew out of common commitment by six countries not to repeat the catastrophic war they had emerged from. If the UK rejoins, it can do even more to help avert another catastrophic war in Europe. Waving around 180 billion pounds like a lottery prize is not the way to get the UK back into the EU. Supporting European values and being prepared to work in common to defend them is a better way back for the UK.
* Mark Corner is a UK national, who teaches economic history and philosophy at the University of Leuven, is married to a Czech EU official and lives in Brussels. He has just published A Tale of Two Unions suggesting that Brexit may damage the British Union unless the UK becomes more positive about the way the European Union is structured.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Iain Donaldson
Simon Robinson
Chloe
expats
20 Comments
“For instance, it might be said that as a ‘new’ member we should be required to join the eurozone (which now has 21 members). The 180 billion a year power-up may have to come with strings attached”….
I cannot envisage a time when the British public would vote to give up the £ – and in doing so hand fiscal control of the economy to what is in effect some faceless German financiers. There’s more chance of Trump fathering Aoc’s love child than the British voting for that.
For instance, it might be said that as a ‘new’ member we should be required to join the eurozone (which now has 21 members).
We might, but we would be required in the same way that five of the current 6 EU members that aren’t in the Eurozone are, which is to say that they are under no obligation to make any effort to meet the criteria, so de facto they are not required to do so.
(The sixth, Denmark, has a de jure opt-out, as the UK did when we were members)
There nothing wrong with the euro per se. Some may be surprised that I have said this but if the BoE/Govt could have the same control over the euro as they have with the pound there would be no problem.
However, the ECB won’t allow this. They, and the EU will insist we stick to the euro rules. The ill-named Growth and Stability Pact.
Arguably, this is fair enough if we do switch to the euro. However, even though didn’t use the euro when we were in the EU previously we were still required to abide by the same rules. We spent several years on the ‘naughty step’ of the excessive deficit procedure. There was really no justification for this.
So, if we do decide to rejoin, we should aim for a full opt-out from the euro and not just a partial one.
@Craig Levene
“ I cannot envisage a time when the British public would vote to give up the £ – and in doing so hand fiscal control of the economy to what is in effect some faceless German financiers”
Precisely why so many who post on this site about rejoining the EU appear to want to do so without seeking to gain the consent of the people via a referendum. As a Democrat, I think the idea of undoing a decision taken following a referendum without another referendum would be an outrage.
“The ill-named Growth and Stability Pact” is actually the slightly less ill-named Stability and Growth Pact.
“Precisely why so many who post on this site about rejoining the EU appear to want to do so without seeking to gain the consent of the people via a referendum.”
I wonder about this as well; my conclusion is that, for the most part, they are unable, or unwilling, to accept that anybody doesn’t feel the same way that they do about the EU.
Andrew Tampion. Referendums according to Mrs Thatcher were the tools of tyrants and dictators. I blame Harold Wilson, who rather than accept his responsibility as Prime Minister for opting to stay in the EEC chose a referendum as the way to keep his party from splitting on the issue.
The UK is a parliamentary democracy, MPs (and Peers) make the laws. A referendum can only ever be advisory, the final decision always gets made by parliament. Any decision about joining the EU will be made by Parliament and that is how it should be. No referendum I have been involved with has been about the actual question being asked and most have been hijacked, to kick Nick Clegg or to highlight genuine grievances that had nothing to do with membership of the EU. Most are riddled with lies and distortions and are really not the way to make a decision about serious political matters.
So, this LibDem politician wants the decision on joining the EU to be made by MPs who have committed to that course of action in a General Election, which would give them the mandate to do so.
@ Mick,
Are you saying we shouldn’t have had a referendum about AV (2011), that the Scots shouldn’t have been allowed 3 referendums on devolution and independence ( 1979, 1997, 2014), the Welsh 3 on devolution (1979, 1997, 2011), and the Northern Irish 2 on constitutional matters (1973 , 1998)
In addition there have been other minor referendums such as on the nature of Local Govt in London and the North East. Were you against these too?
Would you still be making the same argument if the 2016 referendum had gone your way?
@Peter. Yes. I am against referendums on principle because of the reasons I outlined. I am also a believer in maximum devolution. I would have insisted on implementing AV as part of the coalition agreement (actually I would have pressed for STV as LibDems did in Scotland for local government without a referendum) and would have introduced devolution in Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the regions of England, because my party has always campaigned in favour of that policy. Had we had a majority at any time we would have had a mandate to do just that.
I repeat Thatcher’s argument that referendums are the tools of authoritarians and dictators, they are alien to our constitution, unwritten though it is. Parliament is the sovereign body and Parliament should make decisions. We have regular elections so that MPs can be thrown out if people don’t like what they’re doing.
@ Mick,
If Parliament had made all the decisions without consultation, it possibly could have imposed devolution on the voters of the NE when they didn’t want it and/or denied devolution to Welsh and Scottish voters when they did want it. We could have had AV, which would have suited me personally, but I have to accept that it wasn’t generally wanted. Similarly, we could have had a conflict on decisions taken on constitutional questions on Northern Ireland.
You’re right, at least IMO, that Parliament should be a sovereign body, and this, of course, was an issue with our membership of the EU. Referendums are only advisory in our system, as you say, but I don’t remember anyone from either side taking the trouble to explain this to the electorate beforehand. So, if Parliament is truly sovereign, it should be able to call for an advisory referendum on whatever it likes, and whenever it likes. I don’t see any contradiction providing the advisory nature is properly explained beforehand.
Tony Benn used to make the point that a Parliament should not give away powers during its lifetime and that future Parliaments should have the same powers as previous ones. Sometimes, such as when important foreign Treaties are signed, this isn’t going to be possible. Then there is always a good case, even though Mrs Thatcher may have disagreed, for the electorate to have a direct say, but in an advisory way of course.
Mick; ….2009 Euro manifesto
Liberal Britain, Liberal Europe
Despite a promise to put Britain at the heart of Europe, over the last 12 years Labour has lost its way, leaving Britain without much influence in many areas of EU business. Liberal Democrats have argued for a referendum on whether Britain stays in or leaves the EU. We are the only party confident enough to put the pro-European case to the British people on the big issue facing us– and let the people decide. Britain will only win the case for a flexible,democratic Europe in Brussels if we settle our arguments at home on whether we should be part of the EU or not.”……
@Craig. I was expressing m y opinion, which at least in this case is at variance with the party’s.
@Peter. You pick poor examples. The NE didn’t want what Prescott offered, which wasn’t really devolution. Having that referendum has stymied all attempts to have a proper devolution settlement, because people say that the NE didn’t want devolution, because they rejected Prescott’s offer.
AV was rejected because the electorate wanted to punish Nick Clegg for forming the coalition. Some people didn’t want AV because it is not PR.
Governments delivering their manifesto pledges would be a novelty in the UK, which is one of the reasons politicians are held in such low esteem. Where governments do deliver, like in Luxembourg and Greece, they tend to get re-elected!
I appreciate the comments on my article, but would like to stress that the main point of it was to suggest that the route to rejoining the EU should be a political rather than an economic one, based on a common commitment to protecting democratic values. Trump and Putin make for a dangerous world in their different ways, and the EU would be more able to form an effective bulwark against autocracy if the UK was part of it. A common defence policy is more of a priority at the moment than a common currency. The need to beef up Britain’s defences is often stressed today – for instance George Cunningham’s recent article in Lib Dem Voice -https://www.libdemvoice.org/time-is-ticking-britains-defences-need-urgent-fixing- 79561.html – but the stress tends to be on comparing what the UK spends with what others spend, rather than a far more integrated defence approach.
“the route to rejoining the EU should be a political rather than an economic one”
The two go hand in hand – they arcan not be opposed since if there is no good economic case, people will not support it.
I was at the Charles Kennedy Memorial Lecture last night given by Nick Clegg and organised by The European Movement UK . Clegg gave a power talk on the economic and political case for Britain to join the EU with a target date of 2036.
I believe the case will not be won unless the centre right/economically liberal supports it – currently the Conservative Party won’t.
Only the LIberal Democrats have the history traditions and political philosophy to make both the political and economic case for Britain’s membership of the EU. Do we have the courage to do both these things?
There may be conditions that are unpopular in the UK. For instance, it might be said that as a ‘new’ member we should be required to join the eurozone…
Adopting the euro is now a requirement to join the EU…
‘Who can join and when?’:
https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/euro/enlargement-euro-area/who-can-join-and-when_en
And yes, that condition is unpopular. Opinion polling shows support for “rejoining” the EU collapses when respondents are informed that means adopting the euro…
‘Western Europeans would support the UK rejoining the EU’ [July 2025]:
https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/52523-western-europeans-would-support-the-uk-rejoining-the-eu
https://archive.is/AnEh9
It seems likely that support would fall even further if poll respondents were informed about the Migration Pact and Schengen and the implications of those.
Trump and Putin make for a dangerous world in their different ways,…
Putin, yes, but President Trump is making the world safer by boosting military spending, encouraging NATO to do the same, and currently preventing a rogue state from making nuclear warheads for their (already demonstrated) long-range ballistic missiles…
‘What if Trump hadn’t attacked Iran? The answer should terrify you’:
https://archive.is/YAaua
…and the EU would be more able to form an effective bulwark against autocracy if the UK was part of it.
The UK has been far more effective in opposing Putin outside the EU than it ever could within. The EU appeared ambivalent about Putin’s annexation of Crimea with several EU members continuing to supply Russia with military equipment. It was the UK who restructured and trained Ukraine’s forces and preemptively supplied 2,000 NLAW (avoiding German airspace). Without that UK support, Putin’s “three-day Special Military Operation” would most likely have been exactly that – a three-day operation.
‘Brexit has let UK respond quickly on Russia and Ukraine, says Polish foreign minister’:
https://archive.is/wWNRp
It would be better to say that rejoining the single market will be of obvious economic benefit and leave others to fill in the billions.
£Billions is what the EU would demand. There would be no net benefit as the UK already has full tariff and quota free access with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). When an EU member, the UK gained an estimated €10 per head from the ‘single market’ — about £500m a year: less than a twentieth of our then EU membership contribution. That’s from the ”decidedly pro-EU” German think-tank, Bertelsmann Stiftung…
‘Policy Brief #2014/02: 20 years of the European single market: growth effects of EU integration’:
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en/publications/publication/did/20-years-of-the-european-single-market-growth-effects-of-eu-integration/
The ‘single market’ still has many intra-EU trade barriers, as detailed in Mario Draghi’s report on European Competitiveness and this IMF paper…
‘Europe’s Productivity Weakness: Firm-Level Roots and Remedies’:
https://www.imf.org/en/publications/wp/issues/2025/02/14/europes-productivity-weakness-firm-level-roots-and-remedies-561771
@Jeff “And yes, that condition is unpopular. Opinion polling shows support for “rejoining” the EU collapses when respondents are informed that means adopting the euro…”
Fortunately, I covered that objection in my comment above.
“The smallest advantages from the growing European integration accrue to Portugal and the United Kingdom with annually €20 and €10 per inhabitant, respectively…
Continuing the quote from the German think-tank: … the United Kingdom’s position is partly due to the selection of the evaluation period which began with a major de-integration step when the United Kingdom quitted the European currency system. (ibid)
(And the benefits of European Single Market membership are not just in growth per capita, of course; customs checks are costing loads, for a start, even though we’ve basically agreed to follow the single market rules in most cases )
And yes, the single market integration is incomplete. That’s why there’s a big push to increase progress of late.
My own view is that if constant pressure and exposure is applied to rejoining the eu at some stage it will become so obvious to both sides that to do so is in everyone’s interests that we will wonder why it has not already happened.
It’s great to see such a strong response to the article.
This is a two parter . So in part two I translate the economic benefits into real life person on the street type benefits! This is how we’ll win the debate . Better quality public services to the benefit of all .