By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A former senior civil servant who led the Brexit department suggests it is time for Britain to discuss rejoining the EU, citing economic analysis that indicates a significant hit to GDP since leaving the single market. He argues that promises made during the Brexit campaign on economics and immigration have not materialized, and the current geopolitical landscape necessitates closer solidarity with European neighbors for national security. Meanwhile, concerns are being raised in the European Parliament regarding the rights and support for EU citizens in the UK and British citizens in Europe post-Brexit, particularly concerning settled status for newborns and the lack of funding for crucial support charities.
Read the original article here
The notion of Britain seeking to rejoin the European Union, as suggested by a former civil servant who helmed the department dedicated to Brexit, presents a compelling, albeit complex, proposition. This perspective, emerging from within the very machinery designed to facilitate the UK’s departure, carries a weight that warrants careful consideration, especially when viewed against the backdrop of the past few years. The very idea of an “UnBrexit” slogan is intriguing, hinting at a reversal of course and a potential acknowledgment that the initial decision may not have yielded the anticipated benefits. It takes a considerable amount of intellectual honesty for someone in such a pivotal role to suggest that their former endeavor might have been misguided or aimed at an outcome that is ultimately detrimental.
From an external viewpoint, the rationale for Britain to be part of the EU makes a great deal of sense. The collective strength, shared governance, and economic integration offer advantages that are difficult to replicate unilaterally. However, there’s a pragmatic consideration: if rejoining meant replicating the disruptive behavior that characterized the UK’s previous membership, then perhaps remaining outside the bloc would be the more sensible option for all parties involved. This isn’t about penalizing a nation, but about ensuring the smooth functioning of a union built on cooperation and mutual respect. The potential for friction can undermine the very foundations of the bloc, and if that’s a risk, then the EU might well be justified in adopting a more cautious stance.
The economic consensus, echoed by numerous experts, consistently pointed towards the benefits of EU membership. The argument for leaving, often framed around sovereignty and the potential for superior independent trade deals, has, in practice, fallen short of expectations. Instead, the narrative has shifted towards the tangible costs of departure, with economists highlighting a significant drop in projected GDP and a rise in the cost of living that many attribute, at least in part, to Brexit. This stark reality suggests that the promises of post-Brexit prosperity have not materialized, leaving Britain in a more vulnerable economic position than before.
The prospect of rejoining the EU, therefore, appears not as a step back, but as a necessary course correction. It’s about acknowledging a monumental mistake and embarking on the arduous, yet potentially rewarding, journey of reintegration. This isn’t a decision to be taken lightly, and it’s likely to be a long and complicated process, especially if the EU insists on a more stringent set of entry conditions this time around. The days of “sweetheart deals” might be over, replaced by a demand for full compliance with the union’s established norms and principles.
One of the significant hurdles to rejoining, as observers point out, would likely be the UK’s continued adherence to the pound sterling. The EU has historically required member states to adopt the euro as a condition of entry, a move that was waived for Britain upon its initial accession. If the EU were to insist on this requirement for re-entry, it would represent a substantial concession on the part of the UK, making the decision even more politically charged and potentially less palatable to a segment of the population. The previous exemptions were a courtesy, and having left, the UK would likely find those doors closed.
Furthermore, any potential return to the EU would probably necessitate a commitment to adhering to the union’s standard rules without special exemptions. The “British drama,” as some describe the often tumultuous relationship with the EU, has created a weariness that suggests a demand for unwavering commitment. The idea of rejoining only to potentially revisit contentious issues a decade or two down the line is unappealing, and therefore, a robust and unambiguous commitment to the EU’s foundational principles would be expected. This time, the negotiations would likely be on the EU’s terms, reflecting a desire for stability and predictability.
The sentiment of “I told you so” is palpable among those who believed Brexit was a flawed decision from the outset. The wasted decade, characterized by political infighting and economic uncertainty, serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of what is perceived by many as a series of poor judgments. The hope is that a new political administration might be willing to address this critical issue with the seriousness it deserves, acknowledging the missteps and charting a path towards reconciliation with the European Union.
However, before the question of rejoining can even be seriously contemplated, a fundamental internal assessment is required. The UK needs to address its own domestic issues, ensuring that its internal governance and legal framework are sound and that the concerns that fueled the Brexit vote, such as issues of immigration and regulation, are managed effectively and fairly. Until these internal matters are settled, the argument for rejoining the EU might be seen as premature, with the focus needing to be on strengthening the nation from within before seeking external alliances.
The pragmatic reality of rejoining also involves acknowledging that the EU may not readily welcome back a nation that has, in essence, demonstrated a willingness to disrupt the bloc’s cohesion. The EU’s economic standing, while facing its own challenges, is substantial, and any readmission would likely come with strict conditions. These might include economic reforms, a commitment to the euro, and potentially the relinquishing of certain sovereign powers that were central to the Brexit argument. The perception of the UK having “fucked up the economy” and subsequently “rubbed the EU’s nose in it” could lead to a more demanding negotiation process, making a return a far more challenging proposition than leaving was.
The geopolitical landscape also plays a role in this discussion. With increasing global instability and potential shifts in international alliances, a stronger, more unified Europe could be seen as a stabilizing force. The US’s relationship with Europe is evolving, and this could create an impetus for closer ties between the UK and the EU, even if it means a less favorable reentry package than what was previously enjoyed. The idea of the UK potentially bringing Commonwealth nations into a closer alignment with the EU is an ambitious one, but it highlights the strategic thinking that might inform such a move.
Ultimately, the question of whether Britain should seek to rejoin the EU, particularly in light of the reflections from those involved in the Brexit process, is multifaceted. It’s a debate steeped in economic realities, political considerations, and the very identity of the nation on the global stage. While the path back might be arduous and fraught with challenges, the acknowledgment that the original decision may have been a profound misstep opens the door to a conversation about what the future holds, and whether a return to the European fold is, after all, the most sensible course of action.