As claims emerge that the EU could fast-track Britain’s return if Brexit were reversed, Independent readers have been debating what that would actually involve in practice.
Much of the conversation focused on the central suggestion that the UK would still have to reapply under Article 49 like any other candidate country, but could move through accession faster thanks to its previous membership and existing alignment with EU rules.
Some readers saw that as a realistic shortcut, pointing to institutional “memory” and the fact much EU regulation is already embedded in UK law. Others were far more cautious, arguing that any speed advantage would be marginal at best.
A recurring theme was that “fast-track” would not mean “easy”. Commenters repeatedly stressed that rejoining would still require full negotiations on budget contributions, legal oversight and treaty obligations.
Several highlighted the most politically sensitive flashpoints – including free movement, European Court jurisdiction and the possibility of eventually joining the euro – as issues that could dominate any future campaign.
Here’s what you had to say:
To rejoin there must be a proper majority in favour, not just of the idea but of the conditions. I don’t say that because I am a Leaver – I voted Remain and continue to think Britain would be better off inside the EU.
But the Leave vote was a simple majority of voters. Few countries would consider that right for what turned out to be a binding vote (rather than the advisory referendum it was set up to be).
Also, the benefits and costs of membership were never properly analysed and explained. Everything was presented from a prejudiced viewpoint. Most of the electorate did not really understand what the consequences of leaving would be.
So, in my opinion, rejoining would need an advisory referendum with a simple majority to ask if it should be explored. If the answer was yes, then the terms would need to be agreed and fully explained before a binding referendum requiring a super-majority.
Now, when you look at the waste of time, energy and aggravation that Brexit has already caused, is it really sensible to take the country into yet more of the same? Or is it time to simply make the best of a very wrong decision and get on with it.
no comment
All of this sounds like great news for people wanting to rejoin the European Union. And joining the euro, the most controversial aspect, treats the British public as if we’re all idiots to suggest this would be some kind of hurdle. British tourists use the euro when they go on holiday to Europe. To suggest we are somehow incapable of using the euro instead of the pound is just insulting.
Being outside of the European Union, we currently have no say in the rules being made that govern Europe. Our companies have to jump through hoops for trade. It is costing us billions of pounds that would go towards public services, but instead we are paying through higher taxes. We are second-class citizens on our own continent and have to face long delays and biometric scanning and fingerprinting to go on holiday.
AscChris
The hard-line noises coming from some in Brussels are less likely to be about putting up barriers to the UK rejoining, and more about stress-testing its wish to do so. It is in the EU’s interests to take a hard line to discourage any other country tempted to leave, but there has always been recognition that having the UK back would be beneficial.
However, the EU needs to be sure that it would be rejoining in good faith and would not try to pull the Brexit stunt again. There is no precedent for any country leaving, let alone rejoining, but that means there is also no barrier to it. If all sides want it, they will find a way to make it happen.
The main issue is how to secure enough popular support in the UK and see off the Reform and Tory Brexit zealots, and how to Farage-proof any future relationship with the EU. To do that, Labour has to either regain momentum and put Reform on the back foot, then include rejoining the EU in its next manifesto, or go for broke and call another referendum, which is probably more risky.
Tanaquil2
The EU might dangle a possible negotiation over joining the eurozone right away as bait now, but Brussels has made clear that if Britain does rejoin, we cannot expect full access without it. That loss of independent monetary policy is the single biggest issue. The Bank of England would no longer control interest rates or money supply; instead, those decisions would be made by the European Central Bank, based not on Britain’s needs but on the eurozone. That matters because Britain’s economy is very different from continental Europe.
One monetary policy across 20-plus economies is an uneven fit. The euro works for those economies that are structurally similar; Britain historically has never been.
Joining the eurozone also means deep financial integration, which during crises means stronger economies supporting weaker ones through EU bailout mechanisms and emergency lending. British taxpayers would instantly find themselves exposed to debt crises in Greece, Italy, Spain and others. It was one of the strongest arguments during the euro debates of the 1990s and 2000s against joining.
OpBarras
The EU though has not respected the UK position and has played a lot of childish games on politicising trade, which have been counterproductive. The UK is a nuclear power with strong Commonwealth and US connections and should fight for better trade relations, but not join the EU via the back door. Any attempts to do this will mean the end of Labour as a credible political party that can be trusted, as it would break their manifesto undertaking.
pfbulmer
