Britain will rejoin the European Union within 15 years, a former European Commission chief has predicted.
Speaking about the UK’s decision to leave the EU at the UCL Centre for Finance, Romano Prodi – who served as president of the European Commission from 1999 to 2004 – said: “I’m betting that in 15 years the UK will come back.”
His optimism for Britain to rejoin the bloc is not matched by Jean-Claude Juncker, another former European Commission chief, who in July suggested it would take “a century or two”.
Speaking to Politico, he said: “When you leave a boat, you can’t get back on the same boat.”
Hmm.
So, I think that the general Rejoin argument is probably twofold:
The leadership was generally in favor.
The referendum was close and happened during a time when events were unfavorable towards Remain (the European migrant crisis).
I’ve argued myself that I don’t think that it will happen for at least some decades, and might never happen.
I don’t think that I’d say “won’t happen for two centuries”, though. That is a long time politically to predict anything with finite time bounds. Compare the world in 1800 to the world in 2000. That’s a very different world.
The arguments I’ve made in the past against a near-term Rejoin being likely are:
Politically, it will be hard for the EU to permit the UK to rejoin with the opt-outs that the UK had. It has denied new members that wanted opt-outs on the grounds that those aren’t being done any more. The EU would need to unanimously vote to add the UK and extend it those opt-outs. And in the UK, the referendum that was close was on being in the EU with those opt-outs, some of which I understand would be politically difficult in the UK to not have. So the very close Leave referendum is perhaps not the best guide to a hypothetical Rejoin referendum, since the latter would probably not have the same state of affairs on offer that the former did.
The EU is not the same EU that the UK left. At the time it left, the UK had been a voice in shaping the EU. As a result, that EU was about as close to the EU that the UK might want as could be expected. But subsequent to that, it has changed. For one famous example, shortly before the referendum, the pro-EU Nick Clegg assured the British public that the idea of an unpopular “EU Army” was an absurdity, and while I don’t think that I’d quite say that the EU has an army, certainly that phrase and the idea of military integration have moved forward.
While things have cooled a bit, the UK has some of the same issues that the EU did with the UK in the form of Scottish secessionists. Scotland was not permitted a second referendum using a similar justification on any kind of near term second referendum. Politically, I think it will be difficult in the UK to hold another near-term referendum on EU membership while also not handing Scottish secessionists another near-term referendum.
Political effect of inertia. Before, it was with Remain, and now with Leave. Reading pre-referendum analysis, my understanding is that it was generally agreed that the status quo was considered “normal” and had an inherent advantage. Leveraging that was, I expect, why Britain’s pro-EU leaders had the UK join, spent some time, and then held a Leave referendum (as they had on the European Coal and Steel Community prior to that) – to obtain favorable conditions giving the benefit of inertia to being in the EU. But they cannot really repeat that trick subsequent to a Leave referendum.
Economic disruption and the greater political weight of incumbents. Any change in economic environment involves disruption, will cause people to be laid off and businesses to go under. These existing organizations are more organized and speak with a louder voice than the not-yet-extant businesses and job slots who will exist in a post-change environment. It’s one reason why free trade agreements – though normally advantageous to a country as a whole – are hard to get through, as the businesses who will go under and workers who will lose their jobs are organized and very vocal on the matter, whereas the businesses who will be formed as a result of the change and the workers who will be hired do not exist, probably don’t know who they are, and have little effective voice.
Precedent for political consensus-building. Part of doing a referendum on weighty matters is as a political tool to build a political consensus for an outcome, to get the issue off the table. As a political leader, one doesn’t want to have opponents of the result simply keep demanding a new referendum a few years down the road. It’s harder to say “no” if those opponents can point to an earlier time an issue came up and say “but they got a second referendum”.
As to the “might never happen” argument, I think that there are arguments for the UK to be a member, that it would be better-off in and the EU with it in…but that rather similar arguments would apply to Canada and the US merging, yet the two show no serious political movements to do so, though they have existed alongside each other for a long time and maintain an amiable relationship. It’s clearly possible for that sort of thing to be a stable state of affairs politically.
Politically, it will be hard for the EU to permit the UK to rejoin with the opt-outs that the UK had. It has denied new members that wanted opt-outs on the grounds that those aren’t being done any more. The EU would need to unanimously vote to add the UK and extend it those opt-outs. And in the UK, the referendum that was close was on being in the EU with those opt-outs, some of which I understand would be politically difficult in the UK to not have. So the very close Leave referendum is perhaps not the best guide to a hypothetical Rejoin referendum, since the latter would probably not have the same state of affairs on offer that the former did.
I don’t think that’s an option. I think it’s a new application and new terms negotiated between the EU and the UK, not “back to how it was”. This will certainly take time to negotiate and to find support for. On both sides.
Economic disruption and the greater political weight of incumbents. Any change in economic environment involves disruption, will cause people to be laid off and businesses to go under. These existing organizations are more organized and speak with a louder voice than the not-yet-extant businesses and job slots who will exist in a post-change environment. It’s one reason why free trade agreements – though normally advantageous to a country as a whole – are hard to get through, as the businesses who will go under and workers who will lose their jobs are organized and very vocal on the matter, whereas the businesses who will be formed as a result of the change and the workers who will be hired do not exist, probably don’t know who they are, and have little effective voice.
Trading with “RoW” is hard while trading within the single market was easy. Rejoining the EU wouldn’t disrupt much other than lowering barriers.
Politically, it will be hard for the EU to permit the UK to rejoin with the opt-outs that the UK had.
I don’t think that’s an option. I think it’s a new application and new terms negotiated between the EU and the UK, not “back to how it was”.
I’m an American, so it’s maybe hard to put myself exactly in the same shoes, but if I were in the EU and able to act freely, I’d personally make the concession to permit the opt-outs to the UK if it permitted for Rejoin (that is, I don’t think that there is great harm, as things were working all right earlier and that any precedent concerns could be addressed arguing that this is a special case) and if I were in the UK and could act freely, I’d make the concession to the EU to give up the opt-outs if it permitted for Rejoin (that is, I think that ultimately, the UK was going to have to give up the opt-outs anyway if staying in the EU…I don’t think that Sweden’s approach of kicking the can down the road repeatedly on monetary union, for example, is going to be sustainable ad infinitum).
I’m just skeptical that political leaders are going to be able to act freely on this matter, as they have their own domestic political pressures.
Trading with “RoW” is hard while trading within the single market was easy. Rejoining the EU wouldn’t disrupt much other than lowering barriers.
Yeah, the existence of the TCA does mean that this is considerably less of a factor than otherwise would be the case, but there are still going to be affected parties – the economic disruption that Brexit would cause was one of the most-prominent arguments in favor of Remain I saw pre-referendum (auto factories using JIT manufacturing will close, vendors doing cross-Channel sales will go under, etc), and this would run through that again.
I’m an American, so it’s maybe hard to put myself exactly in the same shoes, but if I were in the EU and able to act freely, I’d personally make the concession to permit the opt-outs to the UK if it permitted for Rejoin (that is, I don’t think that there is great harm, as things were working all right earlier and that any precedent concerns could be addressed arguing that this is a special case)
The EU would be nigh insane if it were to grant the UK its previous opt-outs, in my opinon. They only got them in the first place because they acted as though were special. They never really committed to the idea of the Union and kept using their potential exit from the union as a bartering chip. But, unfortunately them, they fell flat on their faces when they actually left.
And, honestly, things were not all right before; the UK loved to block just about anything that went beyond trade deals.
The EU has nothing to gain if it went back to giving the UK special treatment. And not really a reason to do it, either, because the UK needs the EU much more than the other way around, as the Brexit negotiations demonstrated clearly.
Giving them back their opt-outs would be like giving in to a child that keeps throwing tantrums when things don’t go its way. If the UK wants to come back, then the EU cannot allow anything but a regular membership – if it greenlights the UK’s application at all.
I’m an American, so it’s maybe hard to put myself exactly in the same shoes, but if I were in the EU and able to act freely, I’d personally make the concession to permit the opt-outs to the UK if it permitted for Rejoin (that is, I don’t think that there is great harm, as things were working all right earlier and that any precedent concerns could be addressed arguing that this is a special case) and if I were in the UK and could act freely, I’d make the concession to the EU to give up the opt-outs if it permitted for Rejoin (that is, I think that ultimately, the UK was going to have to give up the opt-outs anyway if staying in the EU…I don’t think that Sweden’s approach of kicking the can down the road repeatedly on monetary union, for example, is going to be sustainable ad infinitum).
Yeah. There are political realities to take into account but there’s a lot to be gained by both sides, so it’ll be a negotiation with a lot of give and take. But the deal that the UK had is gone forever.
Yeah, the existence of the TCA does mean that this is considerably less of a factor than otherwise would be the case, but there are still going to be affected parties – the economic disruption that Brexit would cause was one of the most-prominent arguments in favor of Remain I saw pre-referendum (auto factories using JIT manufacturing will close, vendors doing cross-Channel sales will go under, etc), and this would run through that again.
The TCA is a very bare bones deal. It’s pretty close to a no deal actually. The main problem is that the UK isn’t trading with “the EU” anymore. They’re trading with France, with all the rules that France has for 3rd countries. And with NL, that might have different rules.
Hmm.
So, I think that the general Rejoin argument is probably twofold:
The leadership was generally in favor.
The referendum was close and happened during a time when events were unfavorable towards Remain (the European migrant crisis).
I’ve argued myself that I don’t think that it will happen for at least some decades, and might never happen.
I don’t think that I’d say “won’t happen for two centuries”, though. That is a long time politically to predict anything with finite time bounds. Compare the world in 1800 to the world in 2000. That’s a very different world.
The arguments I’ve made in the past against a near-term Rejoin being likely are:
Politically, it will be hard for the EU to permit the UK to rejoin with the opt-outs that the UK had. It has denied new members that wanted opt-outs on the grounds that those aren’t being done any more. The EU would need to unanimously vote to add the UK and extend it those opt-outs. And in the UK, the referendum that was close was on being in the EU with those opt-outs, some of which I understand would be politically difficult in the UK to not have. So the very close Leave referendum is perhaps not the best guide to a hypothetical Rejoin referendum, since the latter would probably not have the same state of affairs on offer that the former did.
The EU is not the same EU that the UK left. At the time it left, the UK had been a voice in shaping the EU. As a result, that EU was about as close to the EU that the UK might want as could be expected. But subsequent to that, it has changed. For one famous example, shortly before the referendum, the pro-EU Nick Clegg assured the British public that the idea of an unpopular “EU Army” was an absurdity, and while I don’t think that I’d quite say that the EU has an army, certainly that phrase and the idea of military integration have moved forward.
While things have cooled a bit, the UK has some of the same issues that the EU did with the UK in the form of Scottish secessionists. Scotland was not permitted a second referendum using a similar justification on any kind of near term second referendum. Politically, I think it will be difficult in the UK to hold another near-term referendum on EU membership while also not handing Scottish secessionists another near-term referendum.
Political effect of inertia. Before, it was with Remain, and now with Leave. Reading pre-referendum analysis, my understanding is that it was generally agreed that the status quo was considered “normal” and had an inherent advantage. Leveraging that was, I expect, why Britain’s pro-EU leaders had the UK join, spent some time, and then held a Leave referendum (as they had on the European Coal and Steel Community prior to that) – to obtain favorable conditions giving the benefit of inertia to being in the EU. But they cannot really repeat that trick subsequent to a Leave referendum.
Economic disruption and the greater political weight of incumbents. Any change in economic environment involves disruption, will cause people to be laid off and businesses to go under. These existing organizations are more organized and speak with a louder voice than the not-yet-extant businesses and job slots who will exist in a post-change environment. It’s one reason why free trade agreements – though normally advantageous to a country as a whole – are hard to get through, as the businesses who will go under and workers who will lose their jobs are organized and very vocal on the matter, whereas the businesses who will be formed as a result of the change and the workers who will be hired do not exist, probably don’t know who they are, and have little effective voice.
Precedent for political consensus-building. Part of doing a referendum on weighty matters is as a political tool to build a political consensus for an outcome, to get the issue off the table. As a political leader, one doesn’t want to have opponents of the result simply keep demanding a new referendum a few years down the road. It’s harder to say “no” if those opponents can point to an earlier time an issue came up and say “but they got a second referendum”.
As to the “might never happen” argument, I think that there are arguments for the UK to be a member, that it would be better-off in and the EU with it in…but that rather similar arguments would apply to Canada and the US merging, yet the two show no serious political movements to do so, though they have existed alongside each other for a long time and maintain an amiable relationship. It’s clearly possible for that sort of thing to be a stable state of affairs politically.
I don’t think that’s an option. I think it’s a new application and new terms negotiated between the EU and the UK, not “back to how it was”. This will certainly take time to negotiate and to find support for. On both sides.
Trading with “RoW” is hard while trading within the single market was easy. Rejoining the EU wouldn’t disrupt much other than lowering barriers.
Your other points I pretty much agree with.
I’m an American, so it’s maybe hard to put myself exactly in the same shoes, but if I were in the EU and able to act freely, I’d personally make the concession to permit the opt-outs to the UK if it permitted for Rejoin (that is, I don’t think that there is great harm, as things were working all right earlier and that any precedent concerns could be addressed arguing that this is a special case) and if I were in the UK and could act freely, I’d make the concession to the EU to give up the opt-outs if it permitted for Rejoin (that is, I think that ultimately, the UK was going to have to give up the opt-outs anyway if staying in the EU…I don’t think that Sweden’s approach of kicking the can down the road repeatedly on monetary union, for example, is going to be sustainable ad infinitum).
I’m just skeptical that political leaders are going to be able to act freely on this matter, as they have their own domestic political pressures.
Yeah, the existence of the TCA does mean that this is considerably less of a factor than otherwise would be the case, but there are still going to be affected parties – the economic disruption that Brexit would cause was one of the most-prominent arguments in favor of Remain I saw pre-referendum (auto factories using JIT manufacturing will close, vendors doing cross-Channel sales will go under, etc), and this would run through that again.
The EU would be nigh insane if it were to grant the UK its previous opt-outs, in my opinon. They only got them in the first place because they acted as though were special. They never really committed to the idea of the Union and kept using their potential exit from the union as a bartering chip. But, unfortunately them, they fell flat on their faces when they actually left.
And, honestly, things were not all right before; the UK loved to block just about anything that went beyond trade deals.
The EU has nothing to gain if it went back to giving the UK special treatment. And not really a reason to do it, either, because the UK needs the EU much more than the other way around, as the Brexit negotiations demonstrated clearly.
Giving them back their opt-outs would be like giving in to a child that keeps throwing tantrums when things don’t go its way. If the UK wants to come back, then the EU cannot allow anything but a regular membership – if it greenlights the UK’s application at all.
Yeah. There are political realities to take into account but there’s a lot to be gained by both sides, so it’ll be a negotiation with a lot of give and take. But the deal that the UK had is gone forever.
The TCA is a very bare bones deal. It’s pretty close to a no deal actually. The main problem is that the UK isn’t trading with “the EU” anymore. They’re trading with France, with all the rules that France has for 3rd countries. And with NL, that might have different rules.