In the debate about Reform aka Farage, the progressive parties should be using all the available data, economic, social, etc, about Brexit to question Farage's leadership
The blame for Brexit lies primarily at his door
Any policies Farage proposes should be examined in the light of his failed vision for Britain outside the EU, shackled to the USA
Let's ask a different question. Why cannot we rejoin EFTA, which would automatically give us membership of the EEA and so the single market. Then it's just a matter of a customs union with the EU and we can avoid all the issues like the Euro and ever-closer union. No doubt Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland would welcome a larger market for their goods and we would shoot Farage's fox.
The U.K. left EFTA in 1973 and I don’t think the four wealthy countries, with a combined population of 15 million are interested in the risks associated with an unsettled country of nearly 70 million joining their cosy club.
EFTA has also moved on and now has its own EFTA court in Luxembourg, which draws heavily on ECJ jurisprudence. (Not sure how well that would go down with the “sovereignty brigade”).
The UK has a lot more homework to do before any discussions on alignment (EU / EEA / EFTA etc)that goes beyond the current framework.
The point about the literal “dying out” of 2016’s leave voters is of course true. As is the significant groundswell back in favour of EU membership. Unpleasant as it is to contemplate,however, I can’t see how the Government can move on this without seeking referendum approval for the principle of “rejoin” in advance of any negotiations starting. A clear “Yes” vote would have the dual effect of dampening down the anti EU outrage ( “betrayal of the settled will of the people”etc) from Reform and others as well as persuading EU negotiators of the earnestness of UK intentions.
You don’t need a referendum. It should be the flagship policy and all those remain inclined parties could campaign on. The election is the opportunity the voters have to elect MPs for pro or anti-rejoin parties. If it’s a central issue, and in all manifestos the MPs have the mandate to proceed. No need to waste time on another round of voting
It couldn’t be a ‘flagship’ policy- if such a thing actually exists. Elections are fought on a multitude of different issues and for many voters EU membership (or otherwise) simply won’t be a priority issue . There will also inevitably be different shades of opinion- and therefore likely division - within the parties ( there are still some ‘No’ politicians inside Labour and ,even now , some Tories supportive of rejoining in some form). Furthermore, I recall that one issue which particularly turned voters against Labour in the 1983 election was their policy of EEC withdrawal on the basis of a parliamentary election result- notwithstanding the fact that membership had been overwhelmingly endorsed by the people in a referendum 8 years previously. There also has to be a question as to whether certain key actors in the EU would be willing to engage with a UK government whose negotiating mandate had not been secured by referendum. It is very evident that bringing the UK back into the fold is not an overwhelming priority within the bloc.
I’m not convinced by your argument. Firstly, the last two elections have been fought on a single issue; 2019 Get Brexit Done and 2024 Anyone but the Tory. It really was that simple and EU membership would dominate the conversation because everything else in the policy department would be predicated on us being in or out.
You wouldn’t call the election until you had the deal on the table in the first place (which is why the previous one went so awry). The people could then decide upon which of the 5 main parties you wanted to stop it or get the deal done. We’re going to see some major moves in the coming years on the subject so there will be a lot of talk about our relationship with Europe in general on defence and trade in particular.
We have no hope of improving the economy unless we have closer ties now. We could well end this Parliament with a big part of the work already done. I’m sure next month’s summit will throw up some big changes - maybe hinted at in the King’s Speech in a few weeks. So any future union would be going forward from that. The majority want closer ties anyways. That includes 1 in 5 of Reform PLC voters.
I fully agree that the economic consequences of Brexit have been somewhere between disappointing and disastrous. However I am not clear that there is going to be a a straightforward path back in that any political party will be willing or able to give its wholehearted support to (with the possible exception of the LibDems). The French are well known to be somewhat lukewarm about the UK rejoining and are certain to make a number of demands which will be highly unpalatable to HMG ( not just in relation to Fisheries). The Germans are undoubtedly more open to the idea but are not going to accept any suggestion of UK cherrypicking (Rosinenpickerei). For example they would definitely want the UK back inside the EU political institutions which would be a very hard GE sell for any party at present.The best we can probably hope for at this stage are significant and mutually beneficial improvements on the Johnson/Frost deal plus closer defence and security cooperation. As you suggest hopefully some progress will be made in this direction at the summit.
There have been all kinds of rumours flying around that there's a significant proposal along the lines of the arrangement the Swiss have with the EU on the table. That would be a very significant shift for the better - were we to take it.
I strongly suspect that there's been a lot of talking about the next review done during the meetings we've had discussing Ukraine - after all the major players have all been there. So there's already been time for any proposals to be considered by both sides in advance of next month's summit.
It will be interesting to see what makes it into the King's Speech later this month - although it's probably going to be couched under the "closer ties" catch all. The economic situation is making a strong case for a significant shift around our trading like one of the few options the UK have to arrest the damage of the Iran war. This must be in the minds of the current Labour leadership.
This isn't about rejoining the EU but pretty much ripping up all the trade deal set out in the Brexit agreement - which even many of the leave voters didn't want anyways. It gives Labour a defence that it was an unavoidable consequence of all the events which have resulted from the election of the Trump regime, and a chance to demonstrate how important Europe is for our economic wellbeing. Any potential trade offs can be argued as a price worth paying in the face of a possible recession later this year.
One interesting consideration in all this is Poland. They're probably the country who most enthusiastically want the UK back in the fold. They're also the biggest country outside of the usual suspects of the EU and I think their importance is growing. They're firmly in our corner and I think that's going to be significant in the long term - in times when we could elect a coalition government including parties with a far more EU friendly outlook gain power.
I can see the point that the current polls can be viewed as aspirational, but my guess is that people answer the question based on the previous deal we had, which is no longer available.
Once the details of re-entry, such as Euro, free movement, no budget rebate, a path to political union, are introduced into the debate, won’t everything change?
The problem wasn't just the failure of the campaign itself but the fact that, since the late 80's, it was rare to see any headline in the UK which put the EU in a positive light. From butter mountains and wine lakes, to the "panic" about the number of Poles living here to the possibility of a million Romanians coming once they joined. Nobody in the country ever really went out of the way to talk of the benefits we gained by being in the EU. Research carried out by the government even proved that all those people who came under freedom of movement actually paid more into the exchequer than they cost. We can't rejoin overnight and so it's imperative that any move towards closer ties is actively highlighted as being better for Britain.
One weird Brexit benefit could actually be a significant help in all of this. Brexit broke the old two party duopoly and the advent of Reform PLC and Zack Polanski look to have changed things for good. It's unlikely we will ever see one party completely in government ever again. The upshot of this is the likelihood of the nationalists, Greens, and Lib Dems having considerable sway over things. They are all enthusiastic about the EU and will have the power to influence government policy - and maybe even dictate it as the largest party.
There is also the evidence we've gained that Brexit was a failure and that we lost out by listening to the extremists who hijacked it alongside the leaving in itself. There's powerful ammunition out there. One of the biggest hurdles is our right-wing dominated print media but their influence is, thankfully receding. Many young people are hugely pro-Europe and the Trump regime is helping make the argument against the special relationship all by themselves.
We've arrived in very different times. If the people of the UK don't fall for Farage's snake oil in enough numbers, the future could be exciting.
One clear problem with the Brexit process was the 50% simple majority of votes cast, required to tear up decades of economic progress
To reverse Brexit, I suggest we have two referenda, both requiring a 2:1 majority(*)
The first to start negotiations, the second to accept the results of the negotiations
(* I'd also suggest a 50% majority of the overall electorate be required, to address voter apathy or boredom)
For the first vote, Parliament, not the govt but of course guided by the govt, should be required to set out it's negotiating position. That will strengthen the position of our negotiators, give them strong red lines, given weight by the authority of not only the govt, but also Parliament and the electorate, making clear that the UK is serious this time
That debate in Parliament should(?) promote a greater sense of reality in the negotiating position relative to the EU's own legal constraints
Btw, it's worth noting that current conversations with the EU already represent the start of the informal negotiations, with positions being explored and putatively established, options being tested, that will affect the formal negotiations should they be sanctioned by the electorate - that is unavoidable,
Yes, all states joining the EU post-1992 (that held referenda) conducted a single vote, after terms had been negotiated, on those specific terms.
Which does seem more sensible than taking a binding decision blind (see UK 2016).
Recent terms have been qualitatively different to those which the UK will face though because every joining state post-1995 has been a significant net financial beneficiary of the EU budget.
I can’t imagine anyone winning a UK election or referendum in the foreseeable future on a platform of paying £10bn a year to Brussels.
That is probably also a matter of phrasing and context.
For example putting it in the context of other expenses. EU budget contributions are usually just around 2% of each member's budget.
It also is more clear if presented as per-capita numbers, as it shows contributions of smaller countries in the same context.
In total numbers the largest country, Germany, is obviously the largest contributor, but if looked at on what that means for normalized population numbers others end up first and Germany ends up closer to the middle.
Obviously, the UK being one of the next three larger countries (roughly the same population as France and Italy), its total will be also in comparable ranges but its per-capita numbers will be roughly the same as many more members.
For example if you visit "European Union Statistics" on Wikipedia, it currently has rather old numbers (from 2006) in the budget section but neatly includes the UK due to that.
When sorted by total contribution the UK comes fourth (due to the rebate, would be third before Italy without).
When sorted by "total contribution per capita" it comes in at place 12!
It is understandable that people take their knowledge about London getting so much of the money and apply that to the EU.
However, Brussels sees very little of the EU money, same for Belgium.
Most money is spent elsewhere.
One of the unique challenges for the UK is that historically its governments were very bad in tapping into these funds.
Tory governments shunned funds that would would also require national investment, e.g. rail infrastructure.
Labour governments shunned funds that would result in supporting private industries (most recently the SAFE initiative).
Any government contemplating new membership would need to be willing to prioritize getting EU support for things they care about over denying support to things they don't like.
Done properly it would also direct most of that money to areas other than London.
For example EU transport initiatives would be very interested in West/East links across the UK as that would also improve transport from/to Ireland but which get largely ignored by Westminster
This is spot on. The most important new party winning seats and riding hi in the polls Reform remains fanatically anti-EU. Between 1950 and 1990 the Tories were the pro-European party and Labour hostile from Attle rejecting the Schuman Plan in 1951 to the 1983 manifesto calling for a Brexit referendum on EC membership. But there were big Labour figures ( Roy Jenkins, Sirley Williams, TUC general secretaries who supported European ties). Today not a single Tory MP challeneges the Frage line espoused by Kemi Badenoch.
Our press which sets the BBC agenda has its major papers, the D Telegraph, Mail, Murdoch papers, most tabloids, weeklies either hostile or scornful towards Europe.
Another thought occurs
In the debate about Reform aka Farage, the progressive parties should be using all the available data, economic, social, etc, about Brexit to question Farage's leadership
The blame for Brexit lies primarily at his door
Any policies Farage proposes should be examined in the light of his failed vision for Britain outside the EU, shackled to the USA
Let's ask a different question. Why cannot we rejoin EFTA, which would automatically give us membership of the EEA and so the single market. Then it's just a matter of a customs union with the EU and we can avoid all the issues like the Euro and ever-closer union. No doubt Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland would welcome a larger market for their goods and we would shoot Farage's fox.
The U.K. left EFTA in 1973 and I don’t think the four wealthy countries, with a combined population of 15 million are interested in the risks associated with an unsettled country of nearly 70 million joining their cosy club.
EFTA has also moved on and now has its own EFTA court in Luxembourg, which draws heavily on ECJ jurisprudence. (Not sure how well that would go down with the “sovereignty brigade”).
The UK has a lot more homework to do before any discussions on alignment (EU / EEA / EFTA etc)that goes beyond the current framework.
The point about the literal “dying out” of 2016’s leave voters is of course true. As is the significant groundswell back in favour of EU membership. Unpleasant as it is to contemplate,however, I can’t see how the Government can move on this without seeking referendum approval for the principle of “rejoin” in advance of any negotiations starting. A clear “Yes” vote would have the dual effect of dampening down the anti EU outrage ( “betrayal of the settled will of the people”etc) from Reform and others as well as persuading EU negotiators of the earnestness of UK intentions.
You don’t need a referendum. It should be the flagship policy and all those remain inclined parties could campaign on. The election is the opportunity the voters have to elect MPs for pro or anti-rejoin parties. If it’s a central issue, and in all manifestos the MPs have the mandate to proceed. No need to waste time on another round of voting
It couldn’t be a ‘flagship’ policy- if such a thing actually exists. Elections are fought on a multitude of different issues and for many voters EU membership (or otherwise) simply won’t be a priority issue . There will also inevitably be different shades of opinion- and therefore likely division - within the parties ( there are still some ‘No’ politicians inside Labour and ,even now , some Tories supportive of rejoining in some form). Furthermore, I recall that one issue which particularly turned voters against Labour in the 1983 election was their policy of EEC withdrawal on the basis of a parliamentary election result- notwithstanding the fact that membership had been overwhelmingly endorsed by the people in a referendum 8 years previously. There also has to be a question as to whether certain key actors in the EU would be willing to engage with a UK government whose negotiating mandate had not been secured by referendum. It is very evident that bringing the UK back into the fold is not an overwhelming priority within the bloc.
I’m not convinced by your argument. Firstly, the last two elections have been fought on a single issue; 2019 Get Brexit Done and 2024 Anyone but the Tory. It really was that simple and EU membership would dominate the conversation because everything else in the policy department would be predicated on us being in or out.
You wouldn’t call the election until you had the deal on the table in the first place (which is why the previous one went so awry). The people could then decide upon which of the 5 main parties you wanted to stop it or get the deal done. We’re going to see some major moves in the coming years on the subject so there will be a lot of talk about our relationship with Europe in general on defence and trade in particular.
We have no hope of improving the economy unless we have closer ties now. We could well end this Parliament with a big part of the work already done. I’m sure next month’s summit will throw up some big changes - maybe hinted at in the King’s Speech in a few weeks. So any future union would be going forward from that. The majority want closer ties anyways. That includes 1 in 5 of Reform PLC voters.
I fully agree that the economic consequences of Brexit have been somewhere between disappointing and disastrous. However I am not clear that there is going to be a a straightforward path back in that any political party will be willing or able to give its wholehearted support to (with the possible exception of the LibDems). The French are well known to be somewhat lukewarm about the UK rejoining and are certain to make a number of demands which will be highly unpalatable to HMG ( not just in relation to Fisheries). The Germans are undoubtedly more open to the idea but are not going to accept any suggestion of UK cherrypicking (Rosinenpickerei). For example they would definitely want the UK back inside the EU political institutions which would be a very hard GE sell for any party at present.The best we can probably hope for at this stage are significant and mutually beneficial improvements on the Johnson/Frost deal plus closer defence and security cooperation. As you suggest hopefully some progress will be made in this direction at the summit.
There have been all kinds of rumours flying around that there's a significant proposal along the lines of the arrangement the Swiss have with the EU on the table. That would be a very significant shift for the better - were we to take it.
I strongly suspect that there's been a lot of talking about the next review done during the meetings we've had discussing Ukraine - after all the major players have all been there. So there's already been time for any proposals to be considered by both sides in advance of next month's summit.
It will be interesting to see what makes it into the King's Speech later this month - although it's probably going to be couched under the "closer ties" catch all. The economic situation is making a strong case for a significant shift around our trading like one of the few options the UK have to arrest the damage of the Iran war. This must be in the minds of the current Labour leadership.
This isn't about rejoining the EU but pretty much ripping up all the trade deal set out in the Brexit agreement - which even many of the leave voters didn't want anyways. It gives Labour a defence that it was an unavoidable consequence of all the events which have resulted from the election of the Trump regime, and a chance to demonstrate how important Europe is for our economic wellbeing. Any potential trade offs can be argued as a price worth paying in the face of a possible recession later this year.
One interesting consideration in all this is Poland. They're probably the country who most enthusiastically want the UK back in the fold. They're also the biggest country outside of the usual suspects of the EU and I think their importance is growing. They're firmly in our corner and I think that's going to be significant in the long term - in times when we could elect a coalition government including parties with a far more EU friendly outlook gain power.
Agree with you re. Poland. The Nordic and Baltic countries will be in the same place. Hopefully something positive will emerge.
I can see the point that the current polls can be viewed as aspirational, but my guess is that people answer the question based on the previous deal we had, which is no longer available.
Once the details of re-entry, such as Euro, free movement, no budget rebate, a path to political union, are introduced into the debate, won’t everything change?
One of the biggest hurdles of any movement to (re-)join will be to address the failing of the remain campaign.
It is somewhat understandable that the latter had tried to position the UK's existing terms of membership as something valuable that would be lost.
Of course that hadn't been true, the UK had been sidelined by its own governments (of both main parties), sold via myths of being exceptional.
These myths will be very hard to counter, especially for parties involved in creating them in the first place.
The problem wasn't just the failure of the campaign itself but the fact that, since the late 80's, it was rare to see any headline in the UK which put the EU in a positive light. From butter mountains and wine lakes, to the "panic" about the number of Poles living here to the possibility of a million Romanians coming once they joined. Nobody in the country ever really went out of the way to talk of the benefits we gained by being in the EU. Research carried out by the government even proved that all those people who came under freedom of movement actually paid more into the exchequer than they cost. We can't rejoin overnight and so it's imperative that any move towards closer ties is actively highlighted as being better for Britain.
One weird Brexit benefit could actually be a significant help in all of this. Brexit broke the old two party duopoly and the advent of Reform PLC and Zack Polanski look to have changed things for good. It's unlikely we will ever see one party completely in government ever again. The upshot of this is the likelihood of the nationalists, Greens, and Lib Dems having considerable sway over things. They are all enthusiastic about the EU and will have the power to influence government policy - and maybe even dictate it as the largest party.
There is also the evidence we've gained that Brexit was a failure and that we lost out by listening to the extremists who hijacked it alongside the leaving in itself. There's powerful ammunition out there. One of the biggest hurdles is our right-wing dominated print media but their influence is, thankfully receding. Many young people are hugely pro-Europe and the Trump regime is helping make the argument against the special relationship all by themselves.
We've arrived in very different times. If the people of the UK don't fall for Farage's snake oil in enough numbers, the future could be exciting.
As usual, an excellent read, illuminating and pointing the way forward, one with which I totally agree. I do hope MPs subscribe.
Spot on Peter...bravo..there is no other way....
One clear problem with the Brexit process was the 50% simple majority of votes cast, required to tear up decades of economic progress
To reverse Brexit, I suggest we have two referenda, both requiring a 2:1 majority(*)
The first to start negotiations, the second to accept the results of the negotiations
(* I'd also suggest a 50% majority of the overall electorate be required, to address voter apathy or boredom)
For the first vote, Parliament, not the govt but of course guided by the govt, should be required to set out it's negotiating position. That will strengthen the position of our negotiators, give them strong red lines, given weight by the authority of not only the govt, but also Parliament and the electorate, making clear that the UK is serious this time
That debate in Parliament should(?) promote a greater sense of reality in the negotiating position relative to the EU's own legal constraints
Btw, it's worth noting that current conversations with the EU already represent the start of the informal negotiations, with positions being explored and putatively established, options being tested, that will affect the formal negotiations should they be sanctioned by the electorate - that is unavoidable,
I think most newer EU members have had a referendum after end of negotiations but had started to do that based on backing during national elections.
The candidate process can take longer than a single period of parliament so a renewed approval might be more appropriate than a one-off decision
Yes, all states joining the EU post-1992 (that held referenda) conducted a single vote, after terms had been negotiated, on those specific terms.
Which does seem more sensible than taking a binding decision blind (see UK 2016).
Recent terms have been qualitatively different to those which the UK will face though because every joining state post-1995 has been a significant net financial beneficiary of the EU budget.
I can’t imagine anyone winning a UK election or referendum in the foreseeable future on a platform of paying £10bn a year to Brussels.
That is probably also a matter of phrasing and context.
For example putting it in the context of other expenses. EU budget contributions are usually just around 2% of each member's budget.
It also is more clear if presented as per-capita numbers, as it shows contributions of smaller countries in the same context.
In total numbers the largest country, Germany, is obviously the largest contributor, but if looked at on what that means for normalized population numbers others end up first and Germany ends up closer to the middle.
Obviously, the UK being one of the next three larger countries (roughly the same population as France and Italy), its total will be also in comparable ranges but its per-capita numbers will be roughly the same as many more members.
For example if you visit "European Union Statistics" on Wikipedia, it currently has rather old numbers (from 2006) in the budget section but neatly includes the UK due to that.
When sorted by total contribution the UK comes fourth (due to the rebate, would be third before Italy without).
When sorted by "total contribution per capita" it comes in at place 12!
That's a tough sell when your opponent is shouting "They want to give £10bn of your money to fat cats in Brussels!"
This is the reality of trying to move the debate forward.
Again a matter of context.
It is understandable that people take their knowledge about London getting so much of the money and apply that to the EU.
However, Brussels sees very little of the EU money, same for Belgium.
Most money is spent elsewhere.
One of the unique challenges for the UK is that historically its governments were very bad in tapping into these funds.
Tory governments shunned funds that would would also require national investment, e.g. rail infrastructure.
Labour governments shunned funds that would result in supporting private industries (most recently the SAFE initiative).
Any government contemplating new membership would need to be willing to prioritize getting EU support for things they care about over denying support to things they don't like.
Done properly it would also direct most of that money to areas other than London.
For example EU transport initiatives would be very interested in West/East links across the UK as that would also improve transport from/to Ireland but which get largely ignored by Westminster
This is spot on. The most important new party winning seats and riding hi in the polls Reform remains fanatically anti-EU. Between 1950 and 1990 the Tories were the pro-European party and Labour hostile from Attle rejecting the Schuman Plan in 1951 to the 1983 manifesto calling for a Brexit referendum on EC membership. But there were big Labour figures ( Roy Jenkins, Sirley Williams, TUC general secretaries who supported European ties). Today not a single Tory MP challeneges the Frage line espoused by Kemi Badenoch.
Our press which sets the BBC agenda has its major papers, the D Telegraph, Mail, Murdoch papers, most tabloids, weeklies either hostile or scornful towards Europe.