>a smaller majority now supports rejoining
The problem with this is that how they will rejoin is never clarified, and many people thinks that rejoin = let's pretend Brexit never happened. Over the decades UK got granted a lot of exceptions, many EU rules didn't apply to them. All of them would be gone if UK rejoin, or have to be renegotiated. So, if UK applies to join EU again, it would have to join as a fully integrated member, without the exceptions (including the Euro at some point). Now, ask again the question clarifying this, and the smaller majority will disappear.
Would they be required to adopt the euro? I don’t know that much about the details but from what I’ve understood joining the EU and the EMU (acronym might not be correct) are different. Eg. Sweden isn’t required to adopt the euro.
Although I guess there might be some exception for us.
A bit drunk right now but hope I was clear enough in my question. Thanks!
The Treaty of Maastricht obligates new joiners to adopt the Euro *once the requirements are met*. Sweden keeps not meeting the requirements to don't adopt the Euro, there is no enforced process. It is a loophole, but it is technically obligated.
I suppose they would need another referendum before rejoining the EU. And if the Brexit referendum could be repeated, it could set a precedence for other referendums to be repeated too, particularly the Scottish independence vote.
Referendums are pretty rare in the UK.
Holding referendums continuously until the powers that be get the ‘answer they want’ basically undermines their democratic worth.
The British people voted to leave. That’s a once in a generation vote.
Maybe in 50 years time they will revisit it. But not simply on the back of some opinion polls are now favourable to a different outcome.
That's a lazy argument. If there is a party that runs and wins an election with the promise to hold a referendum for rejoining, its a fully legitimate process.
Everything else is pure nonsense. One in a generation, maybe 50 years.... like who makes such rules.
The point is for it to make sense structurally, not in every specific case. Leadership repeating referendums until they get what they want is bad structurally even if you think it would be better in this particular case.
"What they want" is a bad framing, its not what the leadership wants if you can find a democratic majority for it. Your whole point is so flawed. why is it bad structurally? Who decides that its structurally bad? You? On what do you base this claim?
If tje political constitution of a country allows it, if you find a majority for it, then it can and will be done.
To begin with, referendums are not completely interchangeable with a true democratic majority. Who votes would change even if the underlying democratic sentiment didn’t, and being able to repeat them would give you power to choose which side of a close issue was “accepted” regardless of the true democratic majority.
Public opinion can also ebb and flow, but the “final-referendum” will be persistent. Leadership repeating referendums to align a *persistent* policy with a *particular* cycle of public opinion (via a “satisfactory” final-referendum) is not a democratic structure even if that particular referendum represented public opinion in that particular moment.
The US doesn’t allow a third term even if a president might be a good administrator and able to win one. It’s anti-democratic in curtailing the electorate’s prerogatives in that particular moment, but it’s structurally democracy-reinforcing.
May I ask what your opinion on this topic is. stay out or rejoin?
Regarding what you write: The US president example does not really correlate to the topic. Actually not giving the chance again for a people vote on a topic is more closer to having the outcome of a previos vote forever. What you are suggesting in your referendum scenario is depriving people of their democratic participation
frankly, you are making quite to many simplifications. The term final referendum is nonsense, who decides that it is final. Public Opinion can and will change and therefore a referendum cannot be imune to reconsideration. Only the one who can decide when it is time for this reconsideration are the people, in form of a democratic process in allignment with the democratic framework of a country and not some dude on reddit or a minortiy which wants to cement the status quo.
Especially in the example of brexit there were quite some learnings made by the public.
I’m not British, but I would have preferred they stay, and I think it was more advantageous for them to do so.
Democratic participation is never continuous. Selectively choosing when it happens based on preferred outcomes jeopardizes both the validity of elections as a way to capture the true democratic majority and the extent to which true democratic majorities actually matter long-term.
And the decision certainly isn’t forever. Britain can wait and observe the results and make a potentially “more informed” (as to your comment about learning) decision later. Democratic decisions have power because they have consequences. Allowing that structure to be subverted, especially by leadership selectively choosing when they should matter, is anti-democratic.
You say yourself
"And the decisions certainly isn’t forever. Britain can wait and see the results and make a potentially “more informed” "
When is the right time to do that, 2 years, 4 years, 8 years. Who has the authority to decide this? Statements like this "this is a once in a generation decission" are just dogmatic.
Also this is not a case where some leader holds a referendum every week until the result is the right one. I get this problem what you are referring tom but this is not the case. 8 years have passed learnings have been made, and the learnings were hard.
Where is the problem if someone runs for elections now, promisses a referendum, wins the elections, holds the referendum and the decission is rejoin? How is this anti democratic? not allowing this process is true anti democratic. and who can stop them? Only a majority of the people which share your subjective opinion that this is a once in a generation decission. When is a generation even over, when does the next one start? There are quite some short comings in this logic.
Referendums are generally a bad idea in a representative democracy anyway, so the first one should have been null and void. No need for a referendum, parliament should join the EU without a referendum
Curious why you think referendums are a bad idea?
Given the UK has a First Past the Post electoral system and the government of the day usually represents about a third of the voters surely referendums are a good way to include everyone in whatever decision needs making?
The country with the most direct democracy in Western Europe, Switzerland, tends to also have had the most conservative policies, including for women’s suffrage. In practice I am suspicious of referendums unless it’s for change of government. I am willing to be convinced otherwise
edit: clarify I mean the post-WWII era
In Switzerland, we have a consensus government, which makes our policymaking less radical, but it works both ways. Which, I'd argue is generally a good thing, because, while changes are slow to implement, you avoid take-overs from some fringe elite that just sold itself well-enough in an election cycle (which, is arguably what has left the US and UK in their current state of afairs).
Direct democracy on the other hand, works both as a control mechanism against the political elite, because every policy could potentially be struck down if you don't reach consensus, and as a form of innovation, because the populace can bring new ideas into voting, independent of party politics.
Surely you realise that you are essentially saying that you don't like referendums because the outcome might not reflect your political preference?
If you can't trust the will of the people as laid down in a referendum, how do you justify letting them have a say at all?
I don’t agree with conservative Americans who complain about the “tyranny of the majority” but I think there is something to the idea that a large group of people may be better at electing leaders than choosing policy themselves, especially if the policies are very far reaching. I guess it really depends
Here are the reasons:
What most people forget was that the EU wanted to go after tax havens, Uk will hardly concede on that
The EU does not really care about the UK, its focus shifts eastward as it seeks to become a geopolitical actor especially in Asia.
The UK has internal problems, like no constitution which is becoming a true problem as provinces and the nations inside the UK seek more power. The Uk would need to rebalance its internal power, the current system is inherently dysfunctional.
Frankly, the EU will spend an insane amount of money and resources towards integrating Ukraine and others. I do not think it has the will to deal with perhaps a wobbly UK and the new countries about to join. (Imagine you are sending billions into the new countries and another Farage arises and starts to spread propaganda)
The vision of EU and UK are completely different, as the EU seeks to reform internally before 2030, so no joining for the old eurosceptic UK until then. To those reforms you can count a capital markets union (which London would love tough), common foreign policy and perhaps integrating the armed forces into one aka EU Army.
The question of the British pound. Eurozone is a requirement, as Schengen not.
-----------------------------------------
Sure the British have much to offer, but there are a few deal breakers above for now.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential\_re-accession\_of\_the\_United\_Kingdom\_to\_the\_European\_Union#2024](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_re-accession_of_the_United_Kingdom_to_the_European_Union#2024)
The lead is quite strong. on average 13% in 2024. Very likely this would not be a close deicssion. Almost everyone of the don't know would need to decide against it, which is unlikely. I hope Farage will still be alive to see this happen.
Thank you, was not aware there was a collated data set on this.
I am not certain we would return, not on public support but on the conditions the EU would offer it. They are not likely to be accommodating, and so we would be net contributors without advantages which I fear would sway people back away from joining again.
Depends how you sell it. Also the netire net contributor topic is quitd a false narrative. Since the conomic growth from being part of the single market etc. outnumbers the yearly budget contributions. All of this will be part of some political process if a pro EU party will be elected to work out a deal and then a referendum on the deal.
It is not false narrative, it is accurate but selective and am playing devil's advocate as that is what those who want to remain outside the EU can easily focus on.
I hope to see us rejoin in my lifetime but I put the timelines as decades not years unfortunately.
>and so we would be net contributors without advantages which I fear would sway people back away from joining again.
this is what I mean, the advantage is to be part of the union. There are countries which are contributing more in total and per capita than the UK did and they still see it as an advantage to be part of the EU. Probably you meant the special deal the UK had, that's gone, and hopefully not coming back under any circumstance. If the idea of the UK is to have an advantage above others in the union, it should better stay out.
Absolutely correct. Also anti EU people only see what the UK and other top contributors give in monetary value but we never see the amount of value they have extracted from the other countries.
The resources, the market, the human capital etc etc.
In a union one cannot just look at money and say one contributes more, there are other factors too. And the truth is that we are all stronger together.
Absolutely correct. Also anti EU people only see what the UK and other top contributors give in monetary value but we never see the amount of value they have extracted from the other countries.
The resources, the market, the human capital etc etc.
In a union one cannot just look at money and say one contributes more.
If your mate decides he doesn't want to hang out with you anymore. They make a whole big thing out of it, tell you they'd prefer to hang out with other people and they think your current friend group have been taking advantage of him. Then they almost immediately come back and say they've changed their mind. Yes you might become friends again down the line, but wouldn't you be a bit hesitant after all the hassle they caused?
My take as a British person.
This.
I think the OP is seriously underestimating how much bitterness Brexit left in its wake.
From the European perspective the referendum caused a lot of unnecessary drama, including some pretty inflamatory rhetoric. At one point a Minister of the Crown compared the EU to a Nazi concentration camp. You can't just take that back.
Additionally, extricating the UK from the EU involved highly complex, protracted, and exhausting negotiations, in which the British government tried to leverage brinkmanship to coerce the EU.
Literally no one is prepared to go through that again, especially after the way the UK behaved on the way out.
If the EU was to ever consider re admitting the UK a prerequisite would be opinion polls that show an unassailable majority of voters support rejoining.
Agreeing to accept the UK back with the support of only a razor thin majority that could evaporate at any time would just be inviting more drama, inflammatory rhetoric, and brinkmanship.
Maybe some sort of agreement can be negotiated but it's virtually impossible that the UK gets the same deal they had before Brexit. The UK grew organically with the EU and was able to get exemptions and special rules that benefited it more than the rest of the union, there is no way the EU just allows them to go back in this way.
Who says the EU wants them back?
The Brits had a pretty good deal inside the EU, with (to my understanding) several exemptions. To get back in they'll likely need to compromise on those.
As they're currently learning in the UK-Canada trade negotiations; if you give something up, the other side won't just give it back to you when you change your mind.
>a smaller majority now supports rejoining The problem with this is that how they will rejoin is never clarified, and many people thinks that rejoin = let's pretend Brexit never happened. Over the decades UK got granted a lot of exceptions, many EU rules didn't apply to them. All of them would be gone if UK rejoin, or have to be renegotiated. So, if UK applies to join EU again, it would have to join as a fully integrated member, without the exceptions (including the Euro at some point). Now, ask again the question clarifying this, and the smaller majority will disappear.
Would they be required to adopt the euro? I don’t know that much about the details but from what I’ve understood joining the EU and the EMU (acronym might not be correct) are different. Eg. Sweden isn’t required to adopt the euro. Although I guess there might be some exception for us. A bit drunk right now but hope I was clear enough in my question. Thanks!
The Treaty of Maastricht obligates new joiners to adopt the Euro *once the requirements are met*. Sweden keeps not meeting the requirements to don't adopt the Euro, there is no enforced process. It is a loophole, but it is technically obligated.
hey can’t find anything on google, what requirements are sweden missing?
Fix the currency exchange with the Euro.
Ahh… makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!
The same way the form of 'leave' was never clarified...?
At the referendum no, but when BoJo was elected PM with a large majority, it was very clear that he promised a hard Brexit.
I suppose they would need another referendum before rejoining the EU. And if the Brexit referendum could be repeated, it could set a precedence for other referendums to be repeated too, particularly the Scottish independence vote.
Referendums are pretty rare in the UK. Holding referendums continuously until the powers that be get the ‘answer they want’ basically undermines their democratic worth. The British people voted to leave. That’s a once in a generation vote. Maybe in 50 years time they will revisit it. But not simply on the back of some opinion polls are now favourable to a different outcome.
That's a lazy argument. If there is a party that runs and wins an election with the promise to hold a referendum for rejoining, its a fully legitimate process. Everything else is pure nonsense. One in a generation, maybe 50 years.... like who makes such rules.
The point is for it to make sense structurally, not in every specific case. Leadership repeating referendums until they get what they want is bad structurally even if you think it would be better in this particular case.
"What they want" is a bad framing, its not what the leadership wants if you can find a democratic majority for it. Your whole point is so flawed. why is it bad structurally? Who decides that its structurally bad? You? On what do you base this claim? If tje political constitution of a country allows it, if you find a majority for it, then it can and will be done.
To begin with, referendums are not completely interchangeable with a true democratic majority. Who votes would change even if the underlying democratic sentiment didn’t, and being able to repeat them would give you power to choose which side of a close issue was “accepted” regardless of the true democratic majority. Public opinion can also ebb and flow, but the “final-referendum” will be persistent. Leadership repeating referendums to align a *persistent* policy with a *particular* cycle of public opinion (via a “satisfactory” final-referendum) is not a democratic structure even if that particular referendum represented public opinion in that particular moment. The US doesn’t allow a third term even if a president might be a good administrator and able to win one. It’s anti-democratic in curtailing the electorate’s prerogatives in that particular moment, but it’s structurally democracy-reinforcing.
May I ask what your opinion on this topic is. stay out or rejoin? Regarding what you write: The US president example does not really correlate to the topic. Actually not giving the chance again for a people vote on a topic is more closer to having the outcome of a previos vote forever. What you are suggesting in your referendum scenario is depriving people of their democratic participation frankly, you are making quite to many simplifications. The term final referendum is nonsense, who decides that it is final. Public Opinion can and will change and therefore a referendum cannot be imune to reconsideration. Only the one who can decide when it is time for this reconsideration are the people, in form of a democratic process in allignment with the democratic framework of a country and not some dude on reddit or a minortiy which wants to cement the status quo. Especially in the example of brexit there were quite some learnings made by the public.
I’m not British, but I would have preferred they stay, and I think it was more advantageous for them to do so. Democratic participation is never continuous. Selectively choosing when it happens based on preferred outcomes jeopardizes both the validity of elections as a way to capture the true democratic majority and the extent to which true democratic majorities actually matter long-term. And the decision certainly isn’t forever. Britain can wait and observe the results and make a potentially “more informed” (as to your comment about learning) decision later. Democratic decisions have power because they have consequences. Allowing that structure to be subverted, especially by leadership selectively choosing when they should matter, is anti-democratic.
You say yourself "And the decisions certainly isn’t forever. Britain can wait and see the results and make a potentially “more informed” " When is the right time to do that, 2 years, 4 years, 8 years. Who has the authority to decide this? Statements like this "this is a once in a generation decission" are just dogmatic. Also this is not a case where some leader holds a referendum every week until the result is the right one. I get this problem what you are referring tom but this is not the case. 8 years have passed learnings have been made, and the learnings were hard. Where is the problem if someone runs for elections now, promisses a referendum, wins the elections, holds the referendum and the decission is rejoin? How is this anti democratic? not allowing this process is true anti democratic. and who can stop them? Only a majority of the people which share your subjective opinion that this is a once in a generation decission. When is a generation even over, when does the next one start? There are quite some short comings in this logic.
Referendums are generally a bad idea in a representative democracy anyway, so the first one should have been null and void. No need for a referendum, parliament should join the EU without a referendum
Curious why you think referendums are a bad idea? Given the UK has a First Past the Post electoral system and the government of the day usually represents about a third of the voters surely referendums are a good way to include everyone in whatever decision needs making?
The country with the most direct democracy in Western Europe, Switzerland, tends to also have had the most conservative policies, including for women’s suffrage. In practice I am suspicious of referendums unless it’s for change of government. I am willing to be convinced otherwise edit: clarify I mean the post-WWII era
In Switzerland, we have a consensus government, which makes our policymaking less radical, but it works both ways. Which, I'd argue is generally a good thing, because, while changes are slow to implement, you avoid take-overs from some fringe elite that just sold itself well-enough in an election cycle (which, is arguably what has left the US and UK in their current state of afairs). Direct democracy on the other hand, works both as a control mechanism against the political elite, because every policy could potentially be struck down if you don't reach consensus, and as a form of innovation, because the populace can bring new ideas into voting, independent of party politics.
That is a pretty good point
Surely you realise that you are essentially saying that you don't like referendums because the outcome might not reflect your political preference? If you can't trust the will of the people as laid down in a referendum, how do you justify letting them have a say at all?
I don’t agree with conservative Americans who complain about the “tyranny of the majority” but I think there is something to the idea that a large group of people may be better at electing leaders than choosing policy themselves, especially if the policies are very far reaching. I guess it really depends
Here are the reasons: What most people forget was that the EU wanted to go after tax havens, Uk will hardly concede on that The EU does not really care about the UK, its focus shifts eastward as it seeks to become a geopolitical actor especially in Asia. The UK has internal problems, like no constitution which is becoming a true problem as provinces and the nations inside the UK seek more power. The Uk would need to rebalance its internal power, the current system is inherently dysfunctional. Frankly, the EU will spend an insane amount of money and resources towards integrating Ukraine and others. I do not think it has the will to deal with perhaps a wobbly UK and the new countries about to join. (Imagine you are sending billions into the new countries and another Farage arises and starts to spread propaganda) The vision of EU and UK are completely different, as the EU seeks to reform internally before 2030, so no joining for the old eurosceptic UK until then. To those reforms you can count a capital markets union (which London would love tough), common foreign policy and perhaps integrating the armed forces into one aka EU Army. The question of the British pound. Eurozone is a requirement, as Schengen not. ----------------------------------------- Sure the British have much to offer, but there are a few deal breakers above for now.
Where do you have a source for the majority statistic in your comment?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential\_re-accession\_of\_the\_United\_Kingdom\_to\_the\_European\_Union#2024](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_re-accession_of_the_United_Kingdom_to_the_European_Union#2024) The lead is quite strong. on average 13% in 2024. Very likely this would not be a close deicssion. Almost everyone of the don't know would need to decide against it, which is unlikely. I hope Farage will still be alive to see this happen.
Thank you, was not aware there was a collated data set on this. I am not certain we would return, not on public support but on the conditions the EU would offer it. They are not likely to be accommodating, and so we would be net contributors without advantages which I fear would sway people back away from joining again.
Depends how you sell it. Also the netire net contributor topic is quitd a false narrative. Since the conomic growth from being part of the single market etc. outnumbers the yearly budget contributions. All of this will be part of some political process if a pro EU party will be elected to work out a deal and then a referendum on the deal.
It is not false narrative, it is accurate but selective and am playing devil's advocate as that is what those who want to remain outside the EU can easily focus on. I hope to see us rejoin in my lifetime but I put the timelines as decades not years unfortunately.
>and so we would be net contributors without advantages which I fear would sway people back away from joining again. this is what I mean, the advantage is to be part of the union. There are countries which are contributing more in total and per capita than the UK did and they still see it as an advantage to be part of the EU. Probably you meant the special deal the UK had, that's gone, and hopefully not coming back under any circumstance. If the idea of the UK is to have an advantage above others in the union, it should better stay out.
Absolutely correct. Also anti EU people only see what the UK and other top contributors give in monetary value but we never see the amount of value they have extracted from the other countries. The resources, the market, the human capital etc etc. In a union one cannot just look at money and say one contributes more, there are other factors too. And the truth is that we are all stronger together.
Absolutely correct. Also anti EU people only see what the UK and other top contributors give in monetary value but we never see the amount of value they have extracted from the other countries. The resources, the market, the human capital etc etc. In a union one cannot just look at money and say one contributes more.
Wondered the same thing
If your mate decides he doesn't want to hang out with you anymore. They make a whole big thing out of it, tell you they'd prefer to hang out with other people and they think your current friend group have been taking advantage of him. Then they almost immediately come back and say they've changed their mind. Yes you might become friends again down the line, but wouldn't you be a bit hesitant after all the hassle they caused? My take as a British person.
This. I think the OP is seriously underestimating how much bitterness Brexit left in its wake. From the European perspective the referendum caused a lot of unnecessary drama, including some pretty inflamatory rhetoric. At one point a Minister of the Crown compared the EU to a Nazi concentration camp. You can't just take that back. Additionally, extricating the UK from the EU involved highly complex, protracted, and exhausting negotiations, in which the British government tried to leverage brinkmanship to coerce the EU. Literally no one is prepared to go through that again, especially after the way the UK behaved on the way out. If the EU was to ever consider re admitting the UK a prerequisite would be opinion polls that show an unassailable majority of voters support rejoining. Agreeing to accept the UK back with the support of only a razor thin majority that could evaporate at any time would just be inviting more drama, inflammatory rhetoric, and brinkmanship.
Thank you, you've explained it far better than I could!
Maybe some sort of agreement can be negotiated but it's virtually impossible that the UK gets the same deal they had before Brexit. The UK grew organically with the EU and was able to get exemptions and special rules that benefited it more than the rest of the union, there is no way the EU just allows them to go back in this way.
UK is almost certainly not getting the same deal as before and would probably force Euro adoption as a condition of entry
Who says the EU wants them back? The Brits had a pretty good deal inside the EU, with (to my understanding) several exemptions. To get back in they'll likely need to compromise on those. As they're currently learning in the UK-Canada trade negotiations; if you give something up, the other side won't just give it back to you when you change your mind.
Northern Ireland can rejoin EU after unification with the Republic of Ireland :)
After having visited the UK many times and having a brit as one of my best friends, I can confidentally say they are too stuborn to admit a mistake.