News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded when necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
Pretty sure the EU won't let the UK rejoin with the same privileges next time
They better fucking not.
Ashamed to ask as an EU citizen, but did UK have some kind of special founding member privileges or something before? Didn't think we had that in the EU, only the vote by population size stuff.
The most striking in modern discussions is they were allowed to keep their own currency which is why it was so easy for them to leave. They did not have to use the euro and kept the British pound.
They technically were not required to be part of schengen in the original agreement and were allowed to have their own border policy
They paid a lower EU membership rebate compared to its wealth or population than other member countries.
They also had the ability to opt out of rights in the EU charter (which has never actually been exercised)
I believe some other countries also keep their currency.
Yes, but Denmark is the only remaining country that has a rule that allows it forever. The other 5 are required to adopt it in a delayed schedule when they pass certain membership criteria.
https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/euro/countries-using-euro_en
Itβs extremely unlikely the UK would be allowed to keep the pound if they rejoined as they already meet those criteria.
I think the other countries can effectively kick the can down the road for as long as needed. you do know your onions though.
That's what Sweden has been doing yes. However it very much is a "mutual understanding" type situation where Sweden is very attached to the SKE and the EU just doesn't really want to bother due to the situation being low-stakes high-friction. The UK also fits all criteria for "must use the Euro", but would not benefit from the same "mutual understanding" that Sweden does because the stakes for the Euro would actually be very large. It is quite unlikely that the EU would just bend the rules and let the UK keep their own currency this time. It is also quite unlikely that the British public would even come close to accepting the Euro.
Regardless of your position on the matter, remember that Brexit negotiations completely broke down multiple times over much, much simpler and lower-stakes questions. The British Ego is at least as large as the French's, and if four years of Brexit should have taught us anything it's that they have extremely unrealistic expectations and actually think that the EU should bend over backwards to have them back.
I think that accepting the euro would also be a way to ensure that the UK is locked in more
But great analysis
What I do consider possible though is a compromise that will introduce national backsides on Euro notes so they can have the King's mug on it.
We do, and Ireland, Denmark and Poland have gotten opt-outs, too (link). The United Kingdom, however, was so extreme about it, that Wikipedia dedicated an entire article just to their opt-outs.
The UK was no founding member of the EU by choice, if I remember correctly. And later on, they only joined due to the financial prospects, not the underlying idea(ls). They always acted as though they were special when they were part of the union (see aforementioned opt-outs) and completely lost it during the Brexit negotiations, when they acted as though they had some sort of leverage over the entire EU. I quite like CGP Grey's video on the topic: youtube.com
In my opinion, the French were right when they didn't want the British to join the union; most of their initial reservations did come true, after all. So, if the UK rejoined the common market without joining the EU, like Norway, for example, that would be fine by me. But no more.
As long as the British do not change their overall stance to the EU much more (and come to terms with their non-specialness), anyway.
The UK joined later.
And yes they did have special concessions (namely a currency opt-out, like Denmark, and a Schengen opt-out, like Ireland and I believe others), although the UK were far from the only ones that had special concessions. E.g. France has a roughly the same sized economy to the UK yet contributed billions less to the budget.
I'm not really sure why people act like the UK is the only country who had concessions. Various countries have all kinds of concessions, and the wealthiest ones typically had more, because they had the most political leverage.
The big ones are currency and the common agricultural policy. Schengen, meh, Britain is an island. There's plenty of EU territory that's not in Schengen what would be important is that Gibraltar joins the area for the simple reason that you can walk there.
The UK is the only country that got a discount on their payments.
Edit: I stand corrected. One of a few
Literally not true at all. France and the UK have a practically identical economy size, but France consistently paid billions less.
You are mistaken if you think countries had leverage to make demands but chose not to use it out of charity.
I found a list, and while I was indeed wrong, as there are other rebates, France is not on the List.
I don't know which numbers you are citing, but if you look at net contributions, payments from the EU to the members may of course also vary.
The UK was the first country to receive a discount though.
Not being part of the same rebate scheme does not mean France didn't pay less.
It literally does. France does not receive a rebate on the normal calculation by gross national income.
France did receive more EU payouts than the UK in the past ( Example from 2017 ), leading to lower net payments. That's not the same as paying less in the first place though.
You're confirming that France pays less in.
Obviously I'm talking about Net. Gross doesn't matter. If a man puts 1β¬ into a box and gets 1β¬ back, he's not really paid anything.
You're confirming that France pays less in.
I'm not. They paid more in fact. They just also got more back out.
Obviously I'm talking about Net. Gross doesn't matter.
Wrong. What a country pays in and what it gets out are two entirely unrelated questions.
Payments to the EU are calculated by GDI and that's that (except when there is a rebate). They are supposed to be fair based on that metric.
Payments back to the members are not "free money" the government can spend on whatever. They are subsidies bound to specific purposes that have their own specific criteria of distribution. They are not designed to be fair by comparison of GDI or similar metrics. If there were, as a hypothetical example, an EU program to subsidize local winemakers, you can see how France would very likely receive more money out of this fund than the UK.
Saying Net doesn't matter is absurd. Of course it matters. What kind of logic is that?!
Person A gives person X 1β¬ in exchange for $1
Person B gives person X 1$ in exchange for $1,000
Who is getting the sweeter deal, A or B?
It's not about who gets the sweeter deal. It's not a transaction. Members don't buy services from the EU with their contributions. If France gets more payouts, it's because France has more of whatever triggers those payouts. It's not the GDI though, so "same GDI, different net payments" is a flawed argument.
If we're both in a tennis club and pay the same member's fees, but I go to play on Thursday, when there's less people, more space and a free drink at the bar for members, but you go on Saturday, when people are fighting for free courts and you can't find a seat at the bar, I get the better deal. That doesn't mean we're not treated fairly, we're just using different parts of what's available.
Now, if you had to pay higher fees in the first place because I said "I"ll only join if I get a discount", that would indeed be unfair.
This would be a fair point if the members didn't set the rules.
But members do set the rules, and France, just like other countries, use their clout to get rules that favour them.
The UK wasn't a founding member.
A major point the others fail to mention is that they got a special discount on their contributions to the EU Budget.
This reduction amounts to roughly 66% of the difference between the UK's contributions to, and receipts from, the EU budget
I think they would, since once UK joins any other state considering leaving can just be shown UK's example if she had joined EU, it could be said it was with tail between her legs.
Fingers crossed π€
Certainly would be good for both parties. Both the EU and the UK were weakened by the move.
Unfortunately, in the UK, while most people think Brexit was a mistake, and most would vote to rejoin if there was a referendum (this has been backed up, by a large margin in polls for years now)... there's not much of a movement to actually call for one to be held.
Brexit dominated the political scene all the way back to the EU/Syrian refugee crisis, up until 2021. Aside from COVID, nothing else was even spoken about in political news or in parliament.
No other issues in the country got any attention, so much political capital was spent on Brexit, to the detriment of everything else. I think people are wary of having another 5+ year onslaught of hearing about nothing other than Brexit.
I do certainly think it's possible (and IMO preferable), though. Labour seem intent on getting closer and closer to the EU. Maybe their plan is to continue with that and hope rejoining is on the cards later. Unfortunately right now it's a hard sell, based on the fatigue around the entire Brexit discussion I mentioned above.
Would it really be that great for the EU, though? After all, the UK was never particularly fond of the European idea generally and further integration (i.e. federalization) in particular, to put it mildly. My biggest fear is the UK might go back blocking just about anything that goes beyond simple trade deals.
So, imho, the EU would be better off it the UK simply rejoined the common market, but not the political union. We have more than enough dissent, as is.
Yes, it would. Both benefit from it. That's why the UK and EU are (mostly silently and in the background) getting closer again, and why a number of EU politicians are making remarks like this.
And the UK didn't block everything other than trade deals. In fact the UK didn't really block much at all if you look into it.
They didn't use their veto more than other large economies, and the likes of Poland and Hungary blocked more. And let's not get into the Netherlands, Ireland, and others blocking attempts at closing tax loopholes.
It's not like the EU has seen massive structural changes since it was "unshackled" from the UK, is it?
Tbf, I couldn't find a source for the UK's voting behavior (and I was being a bit hyperbole). And it's true tht we haven't really seen any reforms since then. The EU has many different countries that want different things at times and some (including mine) are incredibly apathetic.
But that is actually the reason why I do not want the UK to rejoin. Structural reforms are incredibly slow and hard as is. Let's take a common European army for example; afaik a majority would be in favor of it. A member of the European parliament that I once talked with also talked about widespread support within the official bodies of the union. And still, things are slow, though not stagnant; i.e. Germany and the Netherlands have begun integrating their armies into ond.
And all of what has changed i this regard, happened after Brexit (or the referendum, anyway). The UK never had to block votes, because with the UK, any attempts towards a common European army would have been struck down long before anybody got to vote on it. Heck, Eurosceptics loved to use ideas like these to paint Brussels as the boogeyman.
So I'm still not convinced that a full rejoin would offer significant advantages over a Norway type of deal for the EU.
Of course it would offer something significant. Like it or not, the UK is the second largest economy in Europe, likely has more soft power worldwide than any other EU country, has some of the world's best scientific institutions, etc.
Even just the UK's contribution to the EU budget would be a huge positive.
And of course there are massive benefits for the UK as well - way easier trade, not having to duplicate a lot of EU laws creating needless bureaucracy, slowing of the UK's gradual decline on the world stage as the Asian economies becomes more prominent, etc.
If it offered nothing then we wouldn't have numerous EU politicians making comments like this very article details, no?
Oops, I missed a few words in my last paragraph. My bad.
I agree that the larger market and membership fees would be beneficial to the EU (though it doesn't need it even half as much as the UK needs access to the market).
Both of these things, however, would also be achieved if the UK only joined the EEA instead of the EU itself (=what i was trying to say in my last comment). Like Norway or Iceland, the UK would retain (more?) control over some areas, including farming and fishing, but would have no say on EU internals.
And since the internal affairs are complicated enough without the UK, I don't see how minor benefits could outweigh its general stance towards Europe and further integration (which, imho, is needed direlly)
To be honest, I even have doubts about the UKs soft power post Brexit; in my perception, it has decreased drastically since the referendum.
Edit: I am in complete agreement on your points about benefits for the UK. Heck, from the UK's perspective, full membership would probably be best. I just don't think it would be in the best interest of the union.
You keep saying this, yet multiple EU politicians keep expressing a desire for the UK to be in the union.
Like I say, the massive boost to the EU budget alone would make it worthwhile. Nevermind the other stuff.
I repeated myself because I thought you overlooked some of my arguments or that I didn't express myself clearly. But no, you simply chose to ignore half my arguments three times in a row. Nice!
Do you have something to counter my points on EEA vs EU membership, or is "You keep saying thisβ¦" all you could come up with?
β¦ yet multiple EU politicians keep expressing a desire for the UK to be in the union.
If that's a sound argument, then surely Brexit was a splendid idea, too β after all, multiple politicians expressed a desire for it!
I already had. EEA membership wouldn't entail the massive EU budget contributions, for example. Not would you get as much benefit from the UK's soft power, or as intertwined an economy.
I didn't ignore it three times. I ignored it zero times. It was a point already addressed before you even brought it up in the first place.
It's you who hasn't presented any evidence that EEA would actually be better (and seemingly, the EU disagrees with you btw). All you did was lie and say the UK blocked a lot of stuff when they absolutely didn't.
If that's a sound argument, then surely Brexit was a splendid idea, too β after all, multiple politicians expressed a desire for it!
False equivelance.
Brexit was pushed by political opportunists like Farage and Boris, who saw it as a path to power. Boris famously had a letter in support of Remain and a letter in favour of Leave, before deciding that backing Leave would be the best path to becoming PM.
High up EU politicians aren't doing this because they think it'll somehow make them the head of the EU commission or something, they're doing it because it's in the interest of the EU.
If the UK cannot marginalize their conservatives, there can be no reunification. When conservatives have any power at all, they use it to make the UK worse and keep it that way. This is just the nature of conservatism.
If the UK cannot marginalize their conservatives, there can be no reunification.
The EU skeptisicm isn't just a converative thing. The majority of front-bench MPs during the referendum era were Pro EU, and the labour party were divdied on it too. Jeremy Corbyn would never ever give a straight answer on his position on the EU because he was staunchly anti-EU, but his base supporters were hard-remainers.
When conservatives have any power at all, they use it to make the UK worse and keep it that way. This is just the nature of conservatism.
100% agree
And then promptly complain about it
Let's rejoin as full members and all of that bullshit will have allowed progress at the end.
I'm Italian and just seeing Prodi's face (a picture of him 30 years ago btw) makes me sick. Don't worry guys, he has been never accurate in anything and literally lied to the nation in multiple occasions, so rest assured his words will never become true.
Britain will rejoin the European Union within 15 years, a former European Commission chief has predicted.
Speaking about the UKβs decision to leave the EU at the UCL Centre for Finance, Romano Prodi β who served as president of the European Commission from 1999 to 2004 β said: βIβm betting that in 15 years the UK will come back.β
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 βa century or twoβ.
Speaking to Politico, he said: βWhen you leave a boat, you canβt get back on the same boat.β
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 arenβt 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. Itβs one reason why free trade agreements β though normally advantageous to a country as a whole β 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 donβt 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.
Your other points I pretty much agree with.
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.
Iβm an American, so itβs maybe hard to put myself exactly in the same shoes, but if I were in the EU and able to act freely, Iβd personally make the concession to permit the opt-outs to the UK if it permitted for Rejoin (that is, I donβt 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 β if it greenlights the UK's application at all.
Iβm an American, so itβs maybe hard to put myself exactly in the same shoes, but if I were in the EU and able to act freely, Iβd personally make the concession to permit the opt-outs to the UK if it permitted for Rejoin (that is, I donβt 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, Iβd 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 EUβ¦I donβt think that Swedenβs 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 β 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.
I honestly don't want them back unless they pay a hefty price for their idiocy. Also none of that separate currency BS.
Most of the people who voted for Brexit will be dusty bones in the wind by then.
