Admittedly, I don’t know much about Brexit, but from what I have been exposed to, it seems like a decisively economical and political impairment that made travel and business with the rest of Europe more difficult and costly. Since it is so highly criticized as a terrible move, why doesn’t the UK just rejoin the EU?
Many good answers in this thread (and some stupid ones) but there are a few critical issues that the current British government will not accept.
First, currency. GB does not want to give up control over the pound, and their previous agreement did not force them to adopt the Euro. There are several other EU countries that have not yet adopted the Euro, but all except Denmark are obligated to switch over once certain criteria are met. GB might be able to negotiate that privilege again, but the EU is in a stronger bargaining position now.
Second, immigration. For as much as their country is suffering from their own strict immigration policies, the conservative government is still making political hay out of xenophobia and bigotry. Reopening the borders would be a tacit admission that their rhetoric was bullshit.
Third, taxes. Joining the EU means contributing to the EU, and while their nation may save money overall due to improved trade relations, the conservative government has made the cost of admission another talking point.
Basically, the current government would have to renegotiate readmittance to the EU, and they would get a worse deal than they had before. Doing so would make it obvious that leaving was a mistake, and their government could only be consisered an objective failure. So they won’t do it, even if it is the best option available.
Why didn’t Denmark have to switch to the Euro? I can see how back in the 70s the UK had enough bargaining power to keep the Pound, but Denmark?
Every country that joined the EU after the 1992 Maastricht treaty has to adopt the euro. Denmark signed that treaty, UK as well, but if they rejoin, they’d more than likely be treated as a new member.
I disagree - on paper sure they would, but at the end of the day the UK is the ≈2nd biggest economy in Europe (UK and France make up 2nd & 3rd and who is bigger changes every couple of years), unlike Georgia or Moldova or whoever else where their joining is barely noticeable.
That means that the EU is more likely to want the UK to join, vs smaller countries wanting to join the EU, although it would be mutually beneficial of course - the UK would likely increase the EU’s power a little more than the EU would increase the UK’s power, but saying that hides the fact that it’d probably be a 10+% increase in both cases.
Of course the EU could make an example of the UK if they were want to rejoin, but if they were to look at it objectively then they’d most likely reach the conclusion that the negatives of making the concessions they made before are far outweighed by the additional collective power of having the UK as a member.
The UK has proven itself to be a very fickle partner. If they want to join, we would need some serious proofs of good faith. Those proofs are called Euro and Schengen.
That’s a fair point, however it’s hard to see the EU making an example when it’s so in its interest not to… Chances are they’d end up getting some hard proofs in terms of legislation commiting the UK to the EU for a lengthy time period and maybe some other “commitments” which don’t boil down to anything but look firm to members and citizens (as loved by governments everywhere who want to look like they’re doing things while also not wanting to do those same things)
It’s not a “make an example” situation.
It’s a “fool me once” situation.
Also the nature and goal of the union have changed. Euro and Schengen are table stakes. It’s what the union is about.
I’d disagree - it hurts both the EU and the withdrawing nation to have a nation withdraw, so saying “if you withdraw you will end up coming back, but on terms more beneficial to us” is a good move for the EU to further decay eurosceptic movements around Europe. Letting places rejoin on the same terms would encourage eurosceptics as they’d say “we can always rejoin on the same terms”
Why would we let the UK join on the same terms when the terms aren’t conducive to the current aims of the union AND HAVE NOT BEEN SO FOR DECADES?
The UK just doesn’t fit in the EU. They were barely a match for the EC. If they find a Time Machine, they are free to join the 1990 EC under the same terms as they had before. They are not free to join the 2023 EU under those same terms because it’s a different organization that does different things.
Yes the UK is a large powerful nation. But if it doesn’t share the aims of the club, why should we let it in?
And everyone in Britain knows this. They have been banging the “political union vs economic union” for decades. You can see it in this very thread. Well, the EU it’s a political union. You join it now, you become part of a political union.
Or you don’t, and define a different relationship, like Norway or Switzerland or Canada.
Indeed it hurts both. But the EU will survive this issue. With the UK, I’m not sure.
Why would it not be in the interest of the EU to make an example? Poland and Hungary were (led by extremist right political parties) playing with the idea of leaving the EU, too. I think it has become mighty quiet on that front now that they have seen how much of a pain it is for the UK to empty a whole magazine into their own feet.
Same for France and Italy. Nobody is making loud noises about leaving the EU anymore.
The best outcome for the EU would be to drag their feet and wait a decade for readmittance. Right now companies are moving from the UK to the EU.
This is exactly the mentality that made Brexit come true and the post-Brexit agreements such a mess: “The EU needs the UK more than the other way round!”. Now look at it and tell me who needs whom more?
Neither truly needs the other - both are hurt by Brexit but they’re both getting along ok without the other (although brexit was far softer than people tend to realise - aside from a few very major things the UK is still de facto in a lot of EU institutions, and not including issues caused by Russian invasions)
I don’t think EU has any reason to “make an example” by being hard on UK, but they also have no reason to bend the rules to be soft on UK. It would be a really bad signal to send to other joining countries to let the ex-country in easier.
The longer the wait, the sweeter the deal - for the EU.
Yeah well, I’d like them to rejoin before they run the country further down. I’ve visited London several times and I’m shocked to see how it is noticeable falling behind already. If this keeps up, it won’t be great for EU to accept a “Mississippi” state. The sooner they rejoin the better it is for both UK and EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/03/britain-economy-society
I wholly agree, but as long as the political scene is like it is, it will be quite unlikely. I guess it will take at least a generation to get over this in the UK alone, and then it will be questionable still.
It seems the British (IMO the English in particular) need to eat humble pie and the way to make them is sadly economic ruin.
It’s no good letting in somebody who is that flaky and loud and proud about it.
This belongs on the side of a Brexit bus.
Making the same concessions and signal to every other country that you can just hop in and out on a whim? Uhhh I have a bridge to sell you if you really believe that.
It was in regards to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which was sort of the founding treaty of EU. In order to complete the transformation from European Communities to a European Union, all involved countries had to sign the treaty.
Some of the countries just couldn’t legally give off this amount of sovereignty without a domestic election. Denmark being one of them. So, even if it’s a small country, it had the same power as any other country to obstruct the founding of the entire union.
So when the election turned out a narrow “no”, it was a bit of wrench in the wheel. Denmark then negotiated having a few opt outs before they were able hold a new election which then gave a “yes”.
Well I’m looking at it from the other point of view, as in “you’re not allowed to join the EU unless you convert to the Euro”.
The EU didn’t exist at all back then. Today, the EU can make such a demand of a new joiner, say for instance the United Kingdom, because it’s the entire EU vs UK. In 1992, it was Voltron coming together, and they needed that left leg lion to keep him upright.
Old members had a deal there, like the UK did. New members need to join the Euro as part of their joining the EU package.
So Britain is in a sunk cost fallacy situation? If so who exactly in power is preventing us to rejoin?
Well, ostensibly it’s the voters. Vote for progressive candidates.
First of all, all the politicians that would look bad after propagating Brexit. Then those few select rich who gained a fortune from Britain’s misery. And those people who fell for their lies, and simply can’t admit that they had been had. This is the one side.
The other side is the EU. Brexit has cost the EU a fortune, and a lot of work. Re-admitting the UK would be put them in a bind to make sure - absolutely sure - that such a shit show will never, ever, happen again. Basically “Fool me once…” And they would have to convince all current EU members that this time, the UK really means to join and stay and take the whole EU stuff seriously, and not just like they did when the UK joined for the first time: To be in just to be able to easier weaken them.
The funny thing is that the UK now gets way more refugees than before, as France no longer sees the need to keep them back.
Not just that, all these trade deals we cut with other countries means visas for their citizens. Net immigration to the UK has tripled since Brexit from countries like India. I’m sure the racists and xenophobes are really happy with what they voted for.
Well at least all the people who enjoy Indian food will be happy.
Those other countries still accept the euro though right?
I think they do, but probably not guaranteed everywhere. Denmark might not, but I don’t know for sure. I know Czechia does close to the borders, but I haven’t been to the other countries myself to know.
It is up to the shops whether they want to accept euro or not (or any other currency), but the official currency is kroner. I know that some supermarkets (Netto) used to gladly take euro in exchange for a horrible exchange rate