[ad_1]
On two events prior to now month, continental Europeans have requested me whether or not the UK will rejoin the EU. Not for a lot of a long time, if ever, I replied. That is so regardless of the shift in British opinion over the knowledge of Brexit. If the citizens had identified in 2016 what it is aware of at present it will have voted to stay. But it surely didn’t know. The consequence was a leap into the darkish. However that leap occurred. As the traditional thinker Heraclitus informed us, “you cannot step into the same river twice”: neither you nor the river could be the identical. That is additionally true of the EU and the UK. The choice to reapply wouldn’t reverse the choice to depart: each the UK and the EU have modified.
That British public opinion has shifted powerfully is clear. In response to the National Centre for Social Research, the common of six current polls exhibits 56 per cent of respondents in favour of rejoining (or becoming a member of), although the person polls assorted from 60 to 49 per cent in favour. Much more telling is a report by UK in a Altering Europe and Public First (of which my daughter is founding accomplice), printed in September. This reported that 22 per cent of Depart voters thought that Brexit had turned out badly or very badly in opposition to solely 18 per cent who thought it had turned out properly or very properly. “Bregret” then is rife. The truth that Depart voters really feel so let down isn’t a surprise. However it’s also not good for the fame of our democracy. (See charts.)
So, why, given this awakening to (a wholly predictable) actuality, ought to the hassle not be made to rejoin? There are three decisive causes: first, it will create a bunch of latest and damaging uncertainties; second, it will tear British politics aside simply as they had been calming down; third, the deal the UK would get could be fairly completely different from the one it had, not least as a result of, as Michel Barnier, the erstwhile EU negotiator, has informed the Monetary Instances, “The EU at present is now not the EU that the UK left. Now we have begun to attract the teachings of Brexit.”
The uncertainty an software to hitch would create is sort of clear. The battle to reapply alone would devour a lot of a parliament. There would have to be a brand new referendum — for my part, two, one to launch negotiations and one other to evaluate its phrases. Between these, there could be yet one more negotiation, with unpredictable outcomes. The UK would look deranged in doing this so quickly. For enterprise, it will be a nightmare.
Furthermore, reopening the question could be bitterly divisive. Sure, the results of a referendum may go the opposite manner this time. However that’s removed from sure. What it will actually do is redivide the nation, with Leavers viewing it as a betrayal and Remainers as an opportunity for revenge. Labour, if it had been certainly in authorities, could be mad to undertake so divisive a mission. Worse, it will divert consideration and power away from tackling many different financial and social challenges. Sir Keir Starmer is aware of this.
Most vital, the end result wouldn’t be the UK’s to determine. The EU would need to be fairly assured that the brand new member could be extra co-operative and dedicated than the previous one. Given the various challenges the EU confronts, it can not afford to tackle an enormous and doubtlessly hostile member. Who can neglect the offensive scene wherein Nigel Farage and his Brexit party colleagues stood with their backs to the rostrum whereas the anthem performed on the opening session of the EU parliament in 2019?
It could be affordable, then, for the EU to insist that there could be neither choose outs nor rebates. These are historical past. The UK would additionally absolutely have to hitch the eurozone. That might not solely be a check of its dedication, however would additionally make it tougher to depart, because the eurozone disaster confirmed. It could even be mere frequent sense, previous to opening negotiations, to demand that the UK’s vote in favour, in a referendum, could be at the least 60 per cent. Even greater ranges would make sense. In 1975, 67 per cent of voters were in favour. We all know that even this didn’t show lasting.
The EU itself has modified. That is most clearly true with “Subsequent Era EU”, the bundle agreed in response to Covid in 2020, which created frequent borrowing. Additionally vital is the choice to co-ordinate the response to the struggle in Ukraine. Rejoining should absolutely embrace a dedication to the creation of a extra built-in EU. That’s nonetheless not what greater than a small minority of Britons seems to need.
For the second, Starmer’s method is the one smart one — to interchange ideological posturing with pragmatic steps in direction of a more in-depth and extra co-operative relationship. May something plausibly substitute that? Sure. If Trump pulled the US out of Nato, all the things may change. However that would not be an answer a sane particular person would actually need.
martin.wolf@ft.com
Comply with Martin Wolf with myFT and on X
[ad_2]
Source link
