By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A recent survey indicates a significant shift in public opinion regarding the UK’s relationship with the European Union. Two-thirds of EU citizens expressed support for Britain rejoining the bloc, with this sentiment extending even to voters of EU-critical parties. Within the UK, a majority of voters now believe Brexit has negatively impacted key issues like the cost of living and the economy, with many even acknowledging a worsening of illegal immigration. Strikingly, a considerable number of British respondents, including former Leave voters, are now open to reintroducing freedom of movement in exchange for closer trading ties, suggesting a fundamental reassessment of the decision to leave the EU.
Read the original article here
It appears that a recent survey suggests a significant portion of European Union citizens, specifically two-thirds, are in favor of the United Kingdom rejoining the bloc. This finding, if accurate, presents a fascinating shift in sentiment, especially considering the circumstances surrounding the UK’s departure from the EU.
The sentiment from many observers seems to be that Brexit was a decision born out of a degree of “stupidity” and “cowardice,” with its negative economic and political consequences being entirely predictable. There’s a prevailing view that the UK, in leaving, embarked on a self-inflicted injury, a move comparable to the political landscape seen in the United States around the same period. The idea is that logic regarding economics and politics was overlooked in favor of what might have been perceived as populist appeal, amplified by biased media.
A key point raised is the nature of the original referendum, which apparently did not legally obligate the government to implement the result. This suggests that the decision to proceed with Brexit, despite a slim majority and potentially avoidable consequences, was a political choice rather than an unavoidable legal mandate. This raises questions about the bravery of politicians at the time, who perhaps chose to follow a populist wave rather than challenge it, believing it might be electorally advantageous in the short term.
Looking ahead, there’s a strong indication that if the UK were to seek re-entry, the terms would likely be very different from those they previously enjoyed. The notion of a “sweet deal” is considered unlikely, as the UK would be rejoining from a position of seeking readmission rather than being a founding member with considerable influence. The desire from some within the EU seems to be that the UK should undergo the full joining process to truly appreciate and commit to the bloc.
From the perspective of some Brits living abroad, the inconvenience and difficulties in relocating back to the UK due to Brexit are a tangible, negative consequence. This personal impact underscores the broader disruptive nature of the decision. The idea of a new term for rejoining, perhaps one that signifies a learning experience, is even floated, hinting at a desire for a more deliberate and perhaps multilingual approach to future UK-EU relations.
There’s a palpable sense that a united EU, with the UK potentially playing a significant role, could hold substantial global influence, economically, diplomatically, and militarily. The absence of this collaboration is seen by some as a missed opportunity, particularly in contrast to the perceived loss of direction in countries like the US. The argument is made that sovereign nations don’t necessarily prosper in isolation, and that the prosperity of both the UK and continental Europe might have been better served by continued membership.
For some, life hasn’t drastically changed economically since Brexit, particularly for those in more insulated regions of the UK. However, the underlying sentiment for these individuals often remains one of disbelief or frustration that the decision to leave is still considered a good idea by some. This suggests a disconnect between the lived experiences of some and the continued political narrative surrounding Brexit.
A recurring theme is the parallel drawn between Brexit and what is described as the US going “down the same rabbit hole of isolating itself,” with figures like Boris Johnson being likened to a “Trump lite.” This analogy suggests a shared trajectory of nationalistic populism leading to self-imposed detrimental policies, with the subsequent “cleanup” being a significant challenge.
The question of whether rejoining would prevent future referendums is also raised, highlighting the potential for repeated instability. Some suggest that a renewed vote would be necessary, a prospect that some find chaotic. Others express a desire for an easier path for US citizens to settle in the EU, implying a belief that the EU should be a more open and accessible entity on the global stage, perhaps leading the world as the US has “lost its damn minds.”
However, there are clear caveats regarding re-entry. Some believe the UK would need to address its internal “reform problems” before being considered, suggesting concerns about internal political stability mirroring issues seen in other member states. The notion of the EU needing “net budget contributors” is also present, indicating a pragmatic financial consideration in any potential readmission.
A significant concern voiced is the potential for the UK to revert to its previous behavior, demanding special treatment and rebates, and not being willing to integrate fully. There’s a sentiment that the UK has proven unreliable and self-serving in the past, and any return would need to be on the EU’s terms, without exceptionalism or opt-outs, and potentially with adherence to broader EU policies like the Euro and Schengen.
Some express a lack of benefit in rejoining, believing the UK is doing better outside the EU than some continental European nations. There’s a pragmatic, almost dismissive, attitude from some who feel the EU is “better without their asses.” Others suggest that if the UK were to rejoin, it should be without veto powers, opt-outs, or retaining the pound, indicating a desire for genuine integration and equality within the bloc.
Interestingly, there’s a proposal for the UK to adopt the Euro and even switch to driving on the right side of the road as conditions for rejoining, presented with a touch of humor, alongside the preservation of Jeremy Clarkson’s presence. This highlights the complex mix of serious political considerations and cultural nuances that might arise.
The idea that rejoining might be “embarrassing” and that the UK should focus on making its independent path work is also present, suggesting a sense of pride or stubbornness in the decision to leave. Conversely, for those who voted to remain, the uncertainty and disruption of Brexit were the primary concerns, and they may see rejoining as a logical step to rectify that.
There’s also a perspective that Brexit was the “best thing for the EU,” implying that the UK’s departure might have actually benefited the bloc by removing a potentially disruptive element. The question of whether the UK would be welcomed back with favorable terms, given their diminished influence, is also a significant consideration.
However, a strong undercurrent of sentiment suggests that the UK is no longer the influential entity it once was, and any return would be from a position of weakness. The perception is that other countries are moving forward with new trade deals, and the UK’s declining global standing makes its return less of a strategic necessity for the EU.
For some, the rejoining process would need to be rigorous, involving stages like ousting corruption, adopting the Euro, and adhering to a no-veto policy. A mandatory minimum period to prevent repeated departures is also suggested, indicating a desire for stability and commitment.
A significant ethical concern is also raised, with some expressing a refusal to welcome certain individuals or groups back into the EU, citing specific social or political stances they find unacceptable. The idea that “actions should have consequences” for the choice to leave is also a prominent viewpoint.
The narrative of external influence, particularly from Russia, in pushing for Brexit is also brought up, suggesting that the decision was not purely an internal one. This external manipulation, combined with domestic factors like propaganda and opportunism, is seen as a key driver of the Brexit outcome.
The notion that “every population has the same distribution of crazies” and is susceptible to propaganda is a broad observation, with a call for media regulation as a solution. The contrast with the US’s approach, which allegedly legalizes and encourages misinformation for profit, is starkly drawn.
The idea of a deliberate campaign to push Brexit, perhaps for the benefit of certain individuals or countries, is also explored, with the year 2016 being highlighted as particularly “interesting and invigorating” for specific actors. The UK’s pre-Brexit stance as an anti-EU country is noted, but its decision to hold a referendum is seen as a unique and, for some, foolish, act.
The comparison to the US potentially making a similar mistake if it had joined the EU suggests a recognition of a broader, global trend of political turmoil driven by living standards and a willingness to experiment with new political directions. This turmoil is seen as a recurring phenomenon until conditions improve.
Finally, the concept of voters being willing to sacrifice economic well-being for perceived ideological gains, as exemplified by the “fewer foreigners” sentiment, is highlighted. This underscores the complex and often irrational motivations that can drive political decisions, with the possibility of controversial figures returning to power remaining a concern.