Don't know why you are getting downvoted. Demographic shifts make both seem likely. Though I can imagine it becoming the United Kingdom of England and Wales.
I'd rejoin tomorrow if it was my choice. It is mostly older people who voted to leave so in about 20 years I think there will be a clear majority wanting to rejoin.
I think the very oldest people actually voted remain, it was the younger oldies who were most in favour of leaving. I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, but I can't find the stats at the moment.
I wonder if it was a legacy of having witnessed the last war to have directly involved all of Europe.
The peak Leave vote was in the 65-74 age group, in other words those born in the 1940s-1950s (this was alo the highest turnout group). Older voters who actually lived though WW2 were more likely to vote Remain, but overall still more pro-Leave.
Remain dominated for under 45s.
Those who remember living in the British empire were pro EU. Always have been. The younger Thatcher voters were always more sceptical of Europe.
Both claim that England has changed for the worse. But if we were to ask them what has changed and what should be done about it; we would get 2 radical different answers.
How on earth you have been upvoted so much for being so utterly comically wrong I just do not know. The demographics are public. It isn’t hard to check this.
Of the youngest group, 18-24, 73% voted remain. You have to go up to 45+ before leave is bigger.
The oldest grouping, 65+ is the one that voted leave the most.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/
I don't know where you're getting your figures from but it's pretty well documented that support for Brexit was proportional to age. Peaking with the 65+
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/)
The odds are that in the decade since the referendum enough of them have died and enough younger voters have come of age that they would lose another referendum. The problem is that trying to make such things a primary focus of our politics will cause more harm than good because it takes away peoples attention from important thing. We've already lost a decade to this massive waste of time. I'd rather spend the rest of my life dedicated to making Russia collapse.
That’s assuming that mostly everyone who voted remain would vote to rejoin, as well as most of those who are reaching the electoral age now.
Neither of those things is a given.
> so in about 20 years I think there will be a clear majority wanting to rejoin.
you're taking for granted that those who voted remain will still support rejoin (another topic altogether) 20 years from now. A lot of people become more conservative with age.
The "people grow more conservative with age" is not some sort of law of nature. It has to do with building up a standard of living and owning property. If your country struggles to maintain the standard of living and stagnates the amount of people able to hop on the property ladder, suddenly things look a lot different.
iirc there was some recent studies from the UK that actually showed that this doesn't really hold true as much as it used to, as in the tories have completely wrecked their credibility with the younger demographics during their rule, and those have become less conservative with age than previous generation have
You underestimate how badly the Conservatives have ruined the country for anyone under around 35 (and plenty more tbh). Similar to some of the older generation who swore they’d never vote Labour after the 1970s, I can see people of this generation doing similar with the Conservatives.
That's my guess too. I'd never imagine it happening within 10 years of leaving at the absolute minimum. Probably closer to 2050 if the EU is still around and prosperous, there can be early talks of rejoining.
Then again, it's impossible to know what the world looks like by then.
It's not very realistic from a uk perspective me thinks.
They'd 100% want their old, preferable treatment back. Which, of course, will not be granted.
That makes rejoining a hard pill.
From EU side id wager, we'd love to have a large economy retuen to the fold. Especially one laegely inline with the regulations
Even their old, preferential treatment was considered too much Brussels oversight by the Brexit geezers. Unless they're prepared to play by the same rules and not consider themselves better and more special than everybody else, they should stay out until that changes.
I don't think it was considering themselves wanting special treatment. It wasn't like the UK joined only half the rules when they joined.
It was because the rest of the EU members added additional areas of integration that the UK thought was a bad idea, so the UK said "ok, we won't stop you all going ahead but its not for us." If you look at the issues with Schengen and the Euro, I don't think they were necessarily wrong.
That's fair enough, but I see some of even the most pro-rejoining voices in the UK talk about how they need to join from a position of strength so that they can get a Switzerland-style arrangement with the EU, so the pick and choose attitude is still very much there. I believe countries within the EU should certainly have a strong voice to oppose this or that change being made, but once they are in, that's how democracy works - sometimes one may not like a change.
I should disclose my bias here in that I very much support a federalized EU in the style of a United States of Europe, so I think we really do not need any more member states right now that aren't up for closer integration. With China and Russia on the rise and the US pulling out of Europe to focus on East Asia, I think we desperately need to stick together if Europe is to survive the coming decades.
I largely agree with you in terms of looking forward. I think the UK and the EU make better neighbours than roommates. But what you speak to is I think a fundamental different view for how the EU was seen and sold to continental countries and Britain. And that comes out of the experience of WW2. Most European nations got absolutely levelled by the war and their experience was that WW2 was caused by nationalism so the solution is an almost subjugation of nation states to a European polity. The UK's experience was that British patriotism was what kept them going against foreign tyranny even at their darkest hour. The EU was thus seen merely as a trade and diplomatic association for national benefit.
That's a good point, about the fundamentally different viewpoints. We had a two semester long course on just the EU its history and future, when I was studying for my poli sci degree, and it is pretty incredible how far it has come from its humble beginnings as the European Coal & Steel Community. Even though the goal of an eventual federal Europe was there and in writing from the very start, I can understand Britain seeing it mostly through the lens of trade, especially considering they still had a big chunk of their Empire left, back then. Whereas many European nations, including my own, were imperial subjects themselves and had been subjugated for centuries even before WW2.
There is an element of 'pick and choose' without a doubt. Schengen and the Euro will never pass muster in the UK. Thats a product of being an island, a larger economy with a different focus and strong financial sector and a whole host of other reasons.
But what is often ignored by people is that some of that 'pick and choose' attitude was rooted in the failure of the EEC and then EU to actually reform. The Rebate for example (and it wasn't only the UK that got it...) was down to the EEC's inability to reform the ruinous Common Agricultural Policy in the 80's that clearly had been set up to favour certain countries (France amongst them). Despite its clear inefficiency and scandal prone nature the refusal of certain countries to countenance a reform of it led to the Rebate. The Rebate was only supposed to be a short term political fix , to overcome UK demands for reform which were perfectly valid and supported by many in the continent, until real reform could be undertaken....the UK, under Tony Blair, even gave up some of the Rebate in return for Reform of the CAP...which guess what? It never happened...
Yeah, the CAP is a big flaw of the EU, and major reform is obviously still a pain with so many decisions that can be vetoed by a single country. There's definitely legitimate gripes and issues with the EU, and like any gigantic, bureaucratic machine, it is very slow to change anything.
I thought there would be a custom union that would solve the Northern Ireland issue.
Or at least a shitload of treaties, similar to those that govern EU-CH relations.
Nothing. Just a tumbleweed passing by.
Maybe Ukraine will be accepted into EU earlier than UK.
A customs union would be the EU customs union, fat chance convincing Ireland to leave those and you can't really be in 2 completely different ones.
With the Ch situation, the EU has said that it does not want to do that again, because it's a nightmare with the different treaties. (That are not just getting ch in some part of the union, but dictate slightly different rules)
Basically no one is getting in the EU as long as the veto problematic is still there. Everyone knows it needs to be solved, and more members make solving it harder.
The UK can join all treaties that basically make the EU and that would be like an EU membership, just without any political power. Good luck selling that domestically.
I would like to see your face when the PM will announce UK has joined the Market Unique with EU .
Definitely not the Single Market. No connection to that. And the ones who see similarities are not seeing well.
The EU has been trying to cut down on the shitload of treaties that govern EU-CH relations for fifteen years now, that kind of arrangement was a product of a different time, one that will not be coming back, there is no way in hell anyone is going to get that kind of deal nowadays, the UK least of all.
>Don’t Norway and Iceland also get special arrangements via treaties?
Kinda but not really. In the sense that they have to adopt most EU safety regulations and other legislation on goods etc. and other things as well without having anything to say about those regulations, if they do not do so they will lose acces to the European market.
But yes on some other topics they can act more independent from EU, and since they are pretty small anyway they would not have too much influence on EU policy anyway.
Norway model also didn't have support from the UK parliament during Brexit, if the would have gone all in on negotiating that, EU might have been okay with that.
But the UK parliament could not get a majority for any of the 7 proposals, so during negotiation they were basically negotiating with the EU and be like: "yeah we don't know what the hell we want either, but it's your fault for not getting us a good deal".
But overall some Norway type of deal will probably be made in 10 years i would guess.
Rejoining will take far longer if happening ever.
Norway and Iceland are EEA/EFTA members (and i'd argue even that was a product of circumstances that could not be replicated today), switzerland is that with a couple dozen bilateral agreements on top.
Hmmm, let’s see
Windsor Framework
Horizon
MoU on Financial Services Cooperation
EU offered a mobility scheme although that was pretty horrible so got shot down.
UK may offer a veterinary agreement. We’ll see where this ends up.
And it hasn’t even been 5 years since we left.
That conversation will come up again if/when there's actual movement towards a united Ireland. Which I think is at least a decade away from being taken seriously, despite all the chatter.
>Or at least a shitload of treaties, similar to those that govern EU-CH relations.
It's like everyone warned that exactly this would happen and yet London completely ignored it and promised member status benefits without member status
There was no talk, just fluff. It's impossible to expect the UK to even want to join the EU in the near or medium future. The best that can happen are some treaties. But rejoining is out of the question
15-20 years is probably a realistic minimum timeframe, it'll take a lot of time.
First the political side needs to settle on rejoining, and then the whole process of rejoining will take a decade if it goes smoothly. Though I could see the UK rejoining the single market sooner than that if the option becomes available.
Over 55% of the country would like to rejoin. So the country actually wants to rejoin. Politicians probably know we have no leverage to secure a good deal so will avoid it.
Does the EU wants them to rejoin, though? I don't think we need another member country which constantly wants special rules applied to them and blockades every decision. We need to reform the EU first, get rid of unanimity and move power from the council to the parliament.
Yes, it is the distinction between a union and a federation.
But EU grew up, there is a lot of cool laws. And some countries won't be happy to adopt them. They should sign bilateral treaties.
That's not quite true though, is it? By your big bold "all" you probably include joining the Euro. Any new entry would be required to commit to join the Euro when they meet the pre-requisites, including the optional ERM II. So it's entirely optional. See Sweden and the Euro for an example.
The obligation to join the euro is only on paper. See Poland and others east european countries like Czechia that could join the single currency if they wish, but they just don't
That is not true, Poland (and Czechia for that matter) does not met requirements for Euro as of now and there is no foreseeable future that we could get Euro.
Article from last week (in polish, but you can use translator): [https://ksiegowosc.infor.pl/wiadomosci/6637293,czy-polska-spelnia-4-warunki-przyjecia-euro-najnowsza-ocena-komisji-europejskiej.html](https://ksiegowosc.infor.pl/wiadomosci/6637293,czy-polska-spelnia-4-warunki-przyjecia-euro-najnowsza-ocena-komisji-europejskiej.html)
These criteria were met before COVID and war, but your previous goverment didn't want to join. Today, even euro countries don't meet criteria (deficit, debt, inflation...)
Again, this is not true, we never met the currency criteria - check the table with years:
[https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro\_w\_Polsce](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_w_Polsce)
>See Sweden and the Euro for an example.
I wouldn't suggest joining with the intention of skirting the rules. Plus, from our perspective in the Eurozone, it's not like we don't see the game Sweden is playing.
Anyway, the Euro is cool. Join the Euro. Together with the Pound, the Euro will become even stronger
My bet is that UK won't rejoin.
Any union is about abandoning a part of sovereignty.
UK had a lot of freedom. Even the question of national currency is way too invasive.
> Even the question of national currency is way too invasive.
You say that like it is some shallow matter, and not one that also matters to half of the EU's existing members.
I was surprised about this too, although I thought he was in his early 50s. He’s a year older than Nigel Farage which I also found surprising (I thought Farage was way older)
I’m pretty curious about why somebody from Iceland hates Starmer, he’s bland as hell but I wouldn’t say he’s done anything particularly hate worthy at this stage lol
To answer your question. I'm a member of Iceland's SDA (labour's sister party) and other members just keep hyping him up blindly without actually listening to what he's saying. A lot of what he's saying goes against SDA goals (I'm aware that Starmer doesn't affect Icelandic policies). Also I don't have pure hatred in my heart for him, it's just internet hyperbole, he kinda just pusses me off with his centrism.
(This is not an endorsement of Corbyn btw)
I can see closer alignment on some things happening as it would make practical sense after hard Brexit. Some things have already happened like the UK rejoining Horizon Europe. The EU has offered some things already, I would wait and see after the election.
I think/hope that this is how it will go. We will just align more and more closely until opinion is solid enough to rejoin.
Its one of those things which realistically might never happen or events could drive a sudden shift. Starmer would push for rejoin even after saying this if he thought it would win him the next election.
Starmer trying to ensure the red wall brexit vote.
Also, UK also needs EU to welcome it back..and that might not be as easy as many in the UK wish. EU would certainly not want to be doing the Conga with each UK election cycle.
I personally think we'd be welcome back whenever we wanted... We are just gonna pay so much into the EU compared to what we want saying taxes will for sure inflate..
Just like they're forcing Sweden to adopt it? Maybe the Euro will actually be mandatory for new members after 30 years, but currently there's no real obligation to adopt it.
Sweden hasnt squandered its goodwill and trust with the EU.
After Brexit the EU would never be so stupid to give the UK another opportunity with ironclad terms.
There should be a referendum with at least 60% (preferably 70+) voting for joining in order to guarantee a more stable membership, that I agree with. But that's still no reason to force them to use the Euro. Just Schengen would be a good start.
Lol. "Open borders from here to the Black Sea" would be how the anti-EU side would message it and that would make it an even tougher sell than "our money controlled from Germany".
Then the UK will never rejoin. And I think you fail to see how much of a win it would be for the EU if a country with the power and influence of the UK rejoined after leaving. Giving the UK its ironclad terms could be worth it if the EU is in the position to say look the UK left and came back, what chance does other EU countries who might want to leave in the future have if the UK has decided it wants back?
Well I think it could be negotiated - currently e.g. Sweden and Poland aren't in even if they "should" be (they have agreed to join at some indefinite point). And the Danish Crown is pegged to the Euro within a band. The EU knows how to make a messy compromise. But definitely it would be almost impossible to get a deal with all the old privileges, because some stuff like the European banking authority has been relocated, logic of agricultural subsidies has probably changed (originally the UK negotiated a membership fee rebate based on receiving less subsidies) etc.
Why do the UK have to rejoin? It could easily just be like Norway and Iceland in terms of integration while still protecting what's important to it's people.
Both Norway and Iceland have no intention of being full members of the EU now or in the future.
So the UK could easily come into line with them so benefiting the UK and the EU.
The EU is not and never has been your either in or your out.
It's always been... In/out/ we kind follow your rules but have no voting rights but we don't have to follow all your rules either
>Why do the UK have to rejoin? It could easily just be like Norway and Iceland in terms of integration while still protecting what's important to it's people.
What's important to brexiters is no freedom of movement. Norway has FOM.
Turkey isn't strictly in the customs union, and its agreement isn't quite what you get as a full member, either. Given that agreement was concluded as part of EU membership talks for Turkey and where those have gone since then, I very much doubt that kind of deal is going to be on the table again ever, even for prospective members, never mind for countries that don't want to become members (again).
Good points... but UK economy is (even still) pretty huge in European terms. Not sure the Norway or Iceland model would scale. Happy to be proven wrong !
Makes sense. He wants to define policy and expectations to run the country and deal with more pressing issues like nhs and other public services.
It’s better not waste everyone’s time when brexit is still a fresh memory for most. It’ll take a couple of generations to broach the subject without reopening old divisions and losing support.
Probably be more background work on aligning standards, etc, reducing friction, but yeah, given that the work of going beyond that can only work when we look like reliable partners, and that can only start when the Tories stop being anti-EU, given they could scrap any progress by the next election, the timing really isn't in Labours hands. Even the LibDems, unashamedly pro-EU, said that it's a very long road back to the EU in their manifesto.
This is a useful reminder of just how out of touch r/Europe is with regards to British attitudes towards rejoining the EU. It doesn't matter how many polls say that x% of British voters are in favour or rejoining the EU, there is very little real world appetite for reopening that can of worms.
If there was we would either see a single-issue rejoin party that was threatening to undercut the major parties, like UKIP did in 2015; or an established pro-rejoin party like the Lib Dems or Greens surging in popularity. Yet neither the Lib Dems or the Greens are basing their campaign on a pledge to rejoin the EU; rejoining is in their manifestos but both acknowledge it as a long term ambition, not something that can be done in the current political climate.
In fact it is Reform UK, a rebrand of the Brexit Party, who in turn was founded by former UKIP members and is now led by the most prominent Brexiteer ever; which is proving the most likely to undercut the established parties. It is not unfeasable that Reform get 4 to 5 million votes tomorrow, given that UKIP got 3.8million in 2015; how many of those voters do you think are going to be in favour of rejoining the EU?
I suspect it might be Reform's recent surge in the polls (and Labour's slight decline) that has prompted Starmer to say this as an attempt to reassure anyone who might be reluctant to vote Labour because they think it might result in the UK rejoining the EU. Sure Labour might lose some committed rejoiners with this but ultimately those diehards are not important in the current political landscape of the UK.
Thanks. Its the same mess with the polls before the referendum.
They ask people whether they wanna rejoin, but dont ask how and what the consequences might be.
I am pretty sure that if the question gets reframed to:
"Are you in favor of rejoining the EU even if this means replacing the pound with the Euro."
There woudnt be a 60% turn out in favor.
Just give the britons time to settle, see what being independent means and they might be able to redefine the UKs economical standing in the world.
Or atleast let the super toxic EU debatte ghost away by further generations.
That has never been on the table from the EU. The EU doesn't like the partial deal. It's just a mess. At that point just negotiate like a 3rd country and figure out what parts both sides are willing to exchange.
On the EEA, I doubt Norway or Iceland would let the UK join, that'd massively imbalance the power dynamics in that group. And a bilateral deal requires the EU to be willing to engage in the Swiss quagmire again (unlikely) and for the UK to be unified in wanting it (not the case until the Tories become pro-EU, which may take another decade, as they could just break any progress by winning an election at present).
Both have been on the table since the start of the Brexit negotiations. That would in practice require UK to follow many of the EU regulations without having the right to veto or even vote against them though.
What would be the point of EEA?
EEA has customs checks same as the UK does and it doesn't eliminate all tariffs and quotas like the UK/EU FTA does.
Also comes with a load of baggage like accepting EU law and paying into the budget that UKs current agreement with the EU does not require.
Arguably EEA would be a downgrade for the UK.
Not really a surprise and it’s been his mantra for a while. Brexit has irreparable damaged the relationship and any effort to rejoin will be stymied by the EUs recent surge of Russian supporters in upper echelons. (Along with the oddly punitive boner some of you lot have)
Brexit is done and dusted (kinda) best we can do is make the most of the situation instead of starting the process to rejoin.
I think it was an absolute mistake but trying to rejoin at the present would be another on the pile.
Excuse me. But what a load of bollocks about Russian supporters in the upper echelons. It’s impossible and unthinkable but if a serious effort to rejoin were to be contemplated, you’d be let right back in. And with tremendous gratitude and relief.
With Trump, Ukraine, China, the climate crisis, migration, and other global challenges, it would be a win-win for the EU and the UK to get back together and try to form some sort of stronger union to counter these challenges.
And for the punitive boner - well sure some of us enjoyed seeing football *not* coming home to England in 2021, and we might cheer for other EU-members when you enter the semifinals or the final, but that’s about it.
A lot of people in Europe took the Brexit vote extremely personally, almost as a kind of rejection of themselves and their beliefs. This was especially true of people who believe passionately in the European project, who also tend to be the sort of people who populate the upper echelons of EU decision making.
They fully expect Britain to make a grovelling attempt to rejoin one day (it won’t), and that they’ll get the chance to humiliate the Brits with Carthaginian terms and demonstrate to everyone that they were right all along. Even better for them would be if Scotland and Northern Ireland (and even Wales lol) become independent and rejoined separately. You’d also have the Spanish and Greeks and whoever else all trying to extract their pound of flesh. Obviously it’s Reddit, but you can see this attitude on this sub quite a lot, as I think you can in academic literature, news-articles, op-eds etc.
Thing is, even if Brexit had had an enormous and catastrophic impact on the economy (it hasn’t), Brits would probably still rather be poor than endure that sort of humiliation.
>and that they’ll get the chance to humiliate the Brits with Carthaginian terms and demonstrate to everyone that they were right all along.
So is requiring to follow the same rules as everyone else - humiliation now? If they expect special treatment again and consider anything less to be humiliation then they should stay out.
In the recent EU elections, far right made big waves. Most of the far right parties are either supported by or has direct ties to the Kremlin (such as National Rally in France, AfD in Germany), China (Vlaams Belang in Belgium) or various American think tanks.
It's not wrong to state that there are foreign agents/supporters with anti-EU sentiments now in the upper echelons or the EU.
Oh the European contempt is very real, whether it's simply wanting to cheer for any team but England, disparage UK tourists, downplay UK foreign policy, repeatedly stereotype the UK or point to laugh at every bit of UK misfortune; you need only read UK related post on here to see how little people like the UK.
It's become pretty obvious for quite along time now that the UK is not appreciated in Europe in the same way the US is not appreciated. Time to just accept it and move along.
But you are correct, the only reason some Europeans would want the UK back is because suddenly there are bigger things to worry about than sticking it to the Brits.
I think you underestimate the impact that a "we want England to lose" every two years sentiment will do to the average voter in terms of their emotional closeness to Europe.
We won't join unless we can negotiate some of the terms, we won't adopt the euro for example and we will want protections for financial services. Its just not possible to sell the euro to the British public which is very agaisnt it. It means britian will always be out, unless the EU becomes more flexible. Britain was a net contributor to the EU for 20+ years, for many of those it was the second highest, there's no way the British public will accept being treat like a new applicant or a reciever even if that's an arrogant belief. Ultimately Britain joining the customs union might be possible but it all hinges on how flexible the EU is.
I guess you're right about the British public but the European public is very against a special treatment for the UK and tbh I don't see any need to. I mean, neither the UK nor the EU are interested in the UK joining back, while the UK has been a powerful member it also has been a big stopper for the EU as it had its own agenda very much opposite to the other members.
Also the UK had special conditions the EU can't offer to new members as it'd be a dangerous precedent, why would others comply with requirements and regulations?
While the world may change in 10 years I agree it's very difficult we will see the UK interested in joining again, with or without special treatment, afaik there is no debate about it. But well, let's see how Russia keeps pushing Europe, new alliances may be born.
Just have to say that the UK was not a big stopper for the EU it voted in favour for pretty much every EU measure and constitution. It was france and Netherlands who rejected the EU constitution in 2005 leading to negotiating the Lisbon treaty in 2007.
Official voting records show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, meaning the British government has voted against EU laws only 2% of the time since 1999. However from 2009-2015 we voted agaisnt 12% of measures. Which was the same time Cameron won power. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/
It was Cameron and the new Conservative party after brown that began to ruin our relationship with europe when he vetoed the treaty on the eurozone crisis but that was the only time since 1973. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/09/david-cameron-blocks-eu-treaty
They were right to veto the Eurozone crisis work as it tried to pull in non-Euro members into funding the bailout. It was a stupid, cycnical move by other EU members that should never have seen the light of day. it shoudl have been Eurozone members only from day 1.
I'd note that the UK was much less of a 'stopper' than almost any other member state, as we were, almost uniquely among the major economies, prepared to compromise when the community wanted something that didn't suit us.
That's why Schengen and the Euro went ahead despite them not suiting the UK (we could have vetoed, but chose to allow the programs on condition that we get an opt-out), but CFP and CAP reform were blocked time and time again (by Spain and France, since they stood to lose out from any reform). Hell, the EU parliament is still driving lorryloads of boxes back and forth from Strasbourg to Brussels and back every session because the French and Belgians refuse to allow any change that might mean their people get less EU money.
>it also has been a big stopper for the EU as it had its own agenda very much opposite to the other members.
This has shown to be wrong since they left, there has been no big leap in pro Europe integration and it looks like countries such as France are pulling to the right.
Contrary to a lot of commentary online the UK doesn't need the EU. It would benefit from being back in the EU, but it's not like we're going to tumble into being a poor irrelevant state.
That gives negotiating power. Both the UK and EU would benefit from a return, but neither require the other to flourish.
> Ultimately Britain joining the customs union might be possible but it all hinges on how flexible the EU is.
I doubt the EU has any interest in that, it's basically what Brexiteers wanted. I'm all for the UK either joining or going their own way, but strictly against cherry picking.
Because he's trying to cut a chunk of the Reform vote out. If he can keep working class leave voters from going to Reform, that'll make it much more likely that Reform don't get more than a couple of seats, which makes it much less likely they'll be a problem down the line.
Starmer's biggest worry at this point is that Reform might get enough of a bloc in parliament for them to become the dominant force on the right. As shit as the tories are, they're at least not aligned with Putin.
Probably the conservatives would try to smear him as an EU supporter and he tries to deflect that. Also, the UK isn't going to rejoin for another decade if ever, so why not loudly rule it out?
It is one of the bullshit claims going out in official tory campaign literature (along with things like 'he might give immigrants and prisoners the vote' or 'open borders, raiding pensions and endless tax rises).
I've had 2 letters making those bullshit claims. One signed by Boris Johnson that reads like a 12 year old who was told to do a persuasive letter for homework and did it on the bus to school, and one creative if shit one purporting to be a letter from me 20 years in the future (sadly failing to include the scores for the rest of the games in the Euros or any good stock tips)
a small majority means he can be held up by his far left wing. A super majority gives him the room to ignore his left and totally ignore the rump conservative right.
He’s giving the signal that they won’t try to rejoin the EU. This may bring in voters who are sceptical of the EU, but also voters who are looking for stability after many years of turmoil.
Because of the first past the post electoral system which encourages and requires tactical voting.
Due to the spoiler effect, if you don't like the incumbents, you must vote for the second largest or second-most-likely-to-win party. Voting for anyone else is effectively a vote for the incumbents.
Thus, first past the post systems devolve into a two party system where voters are forced to vote for the least worst of two major parties
Only because of how bad the tories are though, he’ll have the largest majority in however many years without making people like him or the party it’s actually kind of impressive
Yeah it mostly is, but Labour have done a brilliant job of steadying their vote share while the Tories have completely collapsed. Any party getting 40%-odd in any country would be pretty happy. It wouldn’t be impossible for both parties to have collapsed under the worst case. We saw that just a few years ago in the EU elections.
However, Starmer has taken Labour from 32% of the vote share in 2019 to likely somewhere in the 39%-42% region.
Yes, but he was really strong in areas where Labour was already strong. Starmer might well get a smaller percentage of the vote, but the vote share seems to be shared across the country much more - leading to more seats. Obviously helped by the Conservative collapse.
Only because of a failure of our electoral system more like. Polls show they'll get less than 40% of the vote but will have a massive majority. I don't want the right wing headbangers in power anymore than the next guy but that's ridiculous.
I still dont quite understand how rejoining can be this controversial when some 65% think Brexit was a mistake and rejoining is at something like 54% support?
It's just not feasible, as things stand "rejoining" means going cap in hand to brussels and getting told to fuck off by the spanish and/or the french at a minimum, that's political suicide and Starmer obviously doesn't want to do that.
Why bother? The referendum is only going to be an advisory one, and definitely won't pass anyway. There's no way we're going to leave the EU, especially if only a small margin want it, and double especially if there's low turn out. /s
I do wonder when the next UK referendum on anything is going to happen, with all the heavy hitting ones they had in the 2010s.
Because stats can tell you whatever you want to be told.
In practice the desire to rejoin is weak. If the campaign to stay out started things would soon look different. It's as much about the process as the end state.
Being in the EU? Yeah, whatever.
Going through the painful national debate, then the rejoin process? Lol, no chance mate.
The mistake cost us our privileges in the EU that’s where most of that comes from.
Rejoining as a standard new member would see support drop off a cliff.
If for arguments sake the EU offered to let us back in with no strings attached as it was before we’d rejoin in a heartbeat but without the privileges we enjoyed before hand it will be a harder sell.
It’s too long of a time to call. Much more can change in 10 years than we are bold enough to predict now.
But as things stand it’s accurate. It’s something that would be for the best, but people in the UK and the EU are just too ‘emotionally exhausted’ to do.
The honest and harsh truth is. The UK will not return into the EU for at least the next 30 to 50 years. The reason:
1. How would the EU look, if they let anybody exit and right back in, as it does not work out as thought? Noone would take the EU serious anymore.
2. To prevent other members to do the same mistake as the UK.
3. Not that important for a reason, but the UK deserves this, to let you taste your own tea. Tastes good, hu? Being a difficult partner the last 1.5 decat was not fun, working with you guys. Blocking shit for stupid reason, get you this.
If you really want to fasten the process, my recommendation would be going after the politicians and royals who are responsible for your situation and getting them behind bars. Building a new party that is more democratic and trying to rejoining the EU in 10 years after a good relationship in between.
So bye bye, see you later in 50 years back in the EU.
Rejoining the single market and creating a customs union is possible, simply because it’s an absolute necessity.
Every party’s economic plans are useless without doing so.
That said, bilateral deals are probably off the table for the EU as the Swiss deal is a nightmare.
Leave voters should walk around with a sign around their neck saying sorry to everyone else.
It’s not really enough to say “we were lied to”. I can think of three major studies, published before the vote, outlining how much of a disaster it was economically and - most importantly- for citizens rights.
Nobody read them.
Despite the headline this story has nothing to do with Brexit or rejoining the EU and has everything to do with Starmer retaining traditional Labour voters who defected to the Conservative party in the last election to make sure Brexit happened.
A couple of weeks ago the Conservatives had been putting about a story that Starmer would seek to rejoin the EU as an attempt to stop those voters from going back to Labour. This is him putting out that fire the Conservatives tried to start.
To be honest, Labour is basically a Conservatives B side nowadays.
So I don't have hopes that he makes life easier for us Europeans on his side of the channel. Still, not making it *harder* is already a start.
I don't see a point in that. It's done and move on living with new reality. It would just be unnecessary waste of time and resources instead of focusing on something else. At least when talking about near future.
Scotland will. We are still adamant to rejoin. Every single part of scotland voted to remain. SNP still brings it up in Westminster and still is our plan if we get independence. Our hope and future is with the rest of Europe!
Starmer has already said he wont allow a second vote.
Most countries dont allow votes or even independence parties, so UDI is also off the table as there will be no EU or major international support.
You checked the polls on Scottish independence recently? The SNP had two generational talents in Salmond and Sturgeon that massively boosted them. Now both their careers have imploded. Scotland won't be independent in Starmer's lifetime either.
The question is not whether he's right or wrong. Obviously, no one can tell. I'm sure in 2010 most politicians would have said they do not see the UK leaving within their lifetimes. The question I have is why is he saying that?
To me it seems like he knows that Brexit is a divisive issue. He cannot voice any opinion either way without upsetting many voters and yet Brexit is still a large elephant in the room. So he has to address it. This sounds to me like he wants to frame Brexit as this natural development outside the scope of politics in order to avoid formulating his opinion. In reality of course Brexit is a highly political question and as the likely future PM he must have an opinion on Britain's future relationship with Europe.
Just another daily reminder that people are not voting for Labour but against the Conservatives (and what they stand for including Brexit).
If all Labour is going to offer for the future is nothing, then they will be out after one term.
I'm an older person and I would rejoin tomorrow if given the chance. I've been waiting for the first party to say they will rejoin because that's where my vote would go.
Does that surprise anyone? I never found the talk about rejoin very realistic, whether you like it or not.
"in my lifetime", meaning possibly next 3-4 decades
That's a lot. 4 decades is 1.5-2 generations.
Maby by that time the UK doesn't exist anymore because of Schotland and noord ierland leaving the UK.
Don't know why you are getting downvoted. Demographic shifts make both seem likely. Though I can imagine it becoming the United Kingdom of England and Wales.
He's in his 60s. He's more likely thinking 20 years, which is probably a realistic time frame for rejoining anyway, sadly.
I really don’t know much about this topic, but I really never expected them to rejoin in the next like 50 years..?
I'd rejoin tomorrow if it was my choice. It is mostly older people who voted to leave so in about 20 years I think there will be a clear majority wanting to rejoin.
I think the very oldest people actually voted remain, it was the younger oldies who were most in favour of leaving. I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, but I can't find the stats at the moment. I wonder if it was a legacy of having witnessed the last war to have directly involved all of Europe.
The peak Leave vote was in the 65-74 age group, in other words those born in the 1940s-1950s (this was alo the highest turnout group). Older voters who actually lived though WW2 were more likely to vote Remain, but overall still more pro-Leave. Remain dominated for under 45s.
Those who remember living in the British empire were pro EU. Always have been. The younger Thatcher voters were always more sceptical of Europe. Both claim that England has changed for the worse. But if we were to ask them what has changed and what should be done about it; we would get 2 radical different answers.
How on earth you have been upvoted so much for being so utterly comically wrong I just do not know. The demographics are public. It isn’t hard to check this. Of the youngest group, 18-24, 73% voted remain. You have to go up to 45+ before leave is bigger. The oldest grouping, 65+ is the one that voted leave the most. https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/
The statistics I found split the 65+ group, which is why I referred to the very oldest, think 80+, and the younger oldies, 65-80.
I don't know where you're getting your figures from but it's pretty well documented that support for Brexit was proportional to age. Peaking with the 65+ [https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/) The odds are that in the decade since the referendum enough of them have died and enough younger voters have come of age that they would lose another referendum. The problem is that trying to make such things a primary focus of our politics will cause more harm than good because it takes away peoples attention from important thing. We've already lost a decade to this massive waste of time. I'd rather spend the rest of my life dedicated to making Russia collapse.
That’s assuming that mostly everyone who voted remain would vote to rejoin, as well as most of those who are reaching the electoral age now. Neither of those things is a given.
If polling is to be believed there is already a clear majority wanting to rejoin.
And if you ask if people would be willing to adopt the Euro it plummets to a tiny minority.
> so in about 20 years I think there will be a clear majority wanting to rejoin. you're taking for granted that those who voted remain will still support rejoin (another topic altogether) 20 years from now. A lot of people become more conservative with age.
The "people grow more conservative with age" is not some sort of law of nature. It has to do with building up a standard of living and owning property. If your country struggles to maintain the standard of living and stagnates the amount of people able to hop on the property ladder, suddenly things look a lot different.
iirc there was some recent studies from the UK that actually showed that this doesn't really hold true as much as it used to, as in the tories have completely wrecked their credibility with the younger demographics during their rule, and those have become less conservative with age than previous generation have
On the other hand, future cohorts might not know what's being in EU like and have no interest in changing the status quo.
You underestimate how badly the Conservatives have ruined the country for anyone under around 35 (and plenty more tbh). Similar to some of the older generation who swore they’d never vote Labour after the 1970s, I can see people of this generation doing similar with the Conservatives.
What he's saying is he won't work for it.
That's my guess too. I'd never imagine it happening within 10 years of leaving at the absolute minimum. Probably closer to 2050 if the EU is still around and prosperous, there can be early talks of rejoining. Then again, it's impossible to know what the world looks like by then.
Accidents happen.
_agent 47 has entered the chat_
It's not very realistic from a uk perspective me thinks. They'd 100% want their old, preferable treatment back. Which, of course, will not be granted. That makes rejoining a hard pill. From EU side id wager, we'd love to have a large economy retuen to the fold. Especially one laegely inline with the regulations
Even their old, preferential treatment was considered too much Brussels oversight by the Brexit geezers. Unless they're prepared to play by the same rules and not consider themselves better and more special than everybody else, they should stay out until that changes.
I don't think it was considering themselves wanting special treatment. It wasn't like the UK joined only half the rules when they joined. It was because the rest of the EU members added additional areas of integration that the UK thought was a bad idea, so the UK said "ok, we won't stop you all going ahead but its not for us." If you look at the issues with Schengen and the Euro, I don't think they were necessarily wrong.
That's fair enough, but I see some of even the most pro-rejoining voices in the UK talk about how they need to join from a position of strength so that they can get a Switzerland-style arrangement with the EU, so the pick and choose attitude is still very much there. I believe countries within the EU should certainly have a strong voice to oppose this or that change being made, but once they are in, that's how democracy works - sometimes one may not like a change. I should disclose my bias here in that I very much support a federalized EU in the style of a United States of Europe, so I think we really do not need any more member states right now that aren't up for closer integration. With China and Russia on the rise and the US pulling out of Europe to focus on East Asia, I think we desperately need to stick together if Europe is to survive the coming decades.
I largely agree with you in terms of looking forward. I think the UK and the EU make better neighbours than roommates. But what you speak to is I think a fundamental different view for how the EU was seen and sold to continental countries and Britain. And that comes out of the experience of WW2. Most European nations got absolutely levelled by the war and their experience was that WW2 was caused by nationalism so the solution is an almost subjugation of nation states to a European polity. The UK's experience was that British patriotism was what kept them going against foreign tyranny even at their darkest hour. The EU was thus seen merely as a trade and diplomatic association for national benefit.
That's a good point, about the fundamentally different viewpoints. We had a two semester long course on just the EU its history and future, when I was studying for my poli sci degree, and it is pretty incredible how far it has come from its humble beginnings as the European Coal & Steel Community. Even though the goal of an eventual federal Europe was there and in writing from the very start, I can understand Britain seeing it mostly through the lens of trade, especially considering they still had a big chunk of their Empire left, back then. Whereas many European nations, including my own, were imperial subjects themselves and had been subjugated for centuries even before WW2.
There is an element of 'pick and choose' without a doubt. Schengen and the Euro will never pass muster in the UK. Thats a product of being an island, a larger economy with a different focus and strong financial sector and a whole host of other reasons. But what is often ignored by people is that some of that 'pick and choose' attitude was rooted in the failure of the EEC and then EU to actually reform. The Rebate for example (and it wasn't only the UK that got it...) was down to the EEC's inability to reform the ruinous Common Agricultural Policy in the 80's that clearly had been set up to favour certain countries (France amongst them). Despite its clear inefficiency and scandal prone nature the refusal of certain countries to countenance a reform of it led to the Rebate. The Rebate was only supposed to be a short term political fix , to overcome UK demands for reform which were perfectly valid and supported by many in the continent, until real reform could be undertaken....the UK, under Tony Blair, even gave up some of the Rebate in return for Reform of the CAP...which guess what? It never happened...
Yeah, the CAP is a big flaw of the EU, and major reform is obviously still a pain with so many decisions that can be vetoed by a single country. There's definitely legitimate gripes and issues with the EU, and like any gigantic, bureaucratic machine, it is very slow to change anything.
I thought there would be a custom union that would solve the Northern Ireland issue. Or at least a shitload of treaties, similar to those that govern EU-CH relations. Nothing. Just a tumbleweed passing by. Maybe Ukraine will be accepted into EU earlier than UK.
A customs union would be the EU customs union, fat chance convincing Ireland to leave those and you can't really be in 2 completely different ones. With the Ch situation, the EU has said that it does not want to do that again, because it's a nightmare with the different treaties. (That are not just getting ch in some part of the union, but dictate slightly different rules) Basically no one is getting in the EU as long as the veto problematic is still there. Everyone knows it needs to be solved, and more members make solving it harder. The UK can join all treaties that basically make the EU and that would be like an EU membership, just without any political power. Good luck selling that domestically.
I would like to see your face when the PM will announce UK has joined the Market Unique with EU . Definitely not the Single Market. No connection to that. And the ones who see similarities are not seeing well.
"We allowed EU to join our custom union".
The EU has been trying to cut down on the shitload of treaties that govern EU-CH relations for fifteen years now, that kind of arrangement was a product of a different time, one that will not be coming back, there is no way in hell anyone is going to get that kind of deal nowadays, the UK least of all.
Don’t Norway and Iceland also get special arrangements via treaties?
>Don’t Norway and Iceland also get special arrangements via treaties? Kinda but not really. In the sense that they have to adopt most EU safety regulations and other legislation on goods etc. and other things as well without having anything to say about those regulations, if they do not do so they will lose acces to the European market. But yes on some other topics they can act more independent from EU, and since they are pretty small anyway they would not have too much influence on EU policy anyway. Norway model also didn't have support from the UK parliament during Brexit, if the would have gone all in on negotiating that, EU might have been okay with that. But the UK parliament could not get a majority for any of the 7 proposals, so during negotiation they were basically negotiating with the EU and be like: "yeah we don't know what the hell we want either, but it's your fault for not getting us a good deal". But overall some Norway type of deal will probably be made in 10 years i would guess. Rejoining will take far longer if happening ever.
Norway and Iceland are EEA/EFTA members (and i'd argue even that was a product of circumstances that could not be replicated today), switzerland is that with a couple dozen bilateral agreements on top.
Hmmm, let’s see Windsor Framework Horizon MoU on Financial Services Cooperation EU offered a mobility scheme although that was pretty horrible so got shot down. UK may offer a veterinary agreement. We’ll see where this ends up. And it hasn’t even been 5 years since we left.
That conversation will come up again if/when there's actual movement towards a united Ireland. Which I think is at least a decade away from being taken seriously, despite all the chatter.
>Or at least a shitload of treaties, similar to those that govern EU-CH relations. It's like everyone warned that exactly this would happen and yet London completely ignored it and promised member status benefits without member status
You're thinking we might sneak in with them, due to the initials confusion?
CPG grey made an excellent video on why all possible decisions for that problem are hard to swallow https://youtu.be/J1Yv24cM2os?si=66rxCNchKJPsNfM4
There was no talk, just fluff. It's impossible to expect the UK to even want to join the EU in the near or medium future. The best that can happen are some treaties. But rejoining is out of the question
15-20 years is probably a realistic minimum timeframe, it'll take a lot of time. First the political side needs to settle on rejoining, and then the whole process of rejoining will take a decade if it goes smoothly. Though I could see the UK rejoining the single market sooner than that if the option becomes available.
Over 55% of the country would like to rejoin. So the country actually wants to rejoin. Politicians probably know we have no leverage to secure a good deal so will avoid it.
Then they should vote for politicians that want to rejoin. For me it seems very clear that Labour doesn't want to rejoin.
Does the EU wants them to rejoin, though? I don't think we need another member country which constantly wants special rules applied to them and blockades every decision. We need to reform the EU first, get rid of unanimity and move power from the council to the parliament.
Old members of EU have an option to opt-out on some (all?) topics. New members are required to adopt **all** EU rules.
As it should be, I guess?
Yes, it is the distinction between a union and a federation. But EU grew up, there is a lot of cool laws. And some countries won't be happy to adopt them. They should sign bilateral treaties.
EU should nuke who doesn't listen to them. Make Europe Great Again! /s
Pls don't do the funni.
Why should it be like that??
It's decided case by case and everything is negotiable as long as all the current members agree.
That's not quite true though, is it? By your big bold "all" you probably include joining the Euro. Any new entry would be required to commit to join the Euro when they meet the pre-requisites, including the optional ERM II. So it's entirely optional. See Sweden and the Euro for an example.
The obligation to join the euro is only on paper. See Poland and others east european countries like Czechia that could join the single currency if they wish, but they just don't
That is not true, Poland (and Czechia for that matter) does not met requirements for Euro as of now and there is no foreseeable future that we could get Euro. Article from last week (in polish, but you can use translator): [https://ksiegowosc.infor.pl/wiadomosci/6637293,czy-polska-spelnia-4-warunki-przyjecia-euro-najnowsza-ocena-komisji-europejskiej.html](https://ksiegowosc.infor.pl/wiadomosci/6637293,czy-polska-spelnia-4-warunki-przyjecia-euro-najnowsza-ocena-komisji-europejskiej.html)
These criteria were met before COVID and war, but your previous goverment didn't want to join. Today, even euro countries don't meet criteria (deficit, debt, inflation...)
Again, this is not true, we never met the currency criteria - check the table with years: [https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro\_w\_Polsce](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_w_Polsce)
And again, you met criteria from 2015 to 2019 in a row except exchange rate, which was a political decision to keep polish competitiveness inside EU
ERM II membership is another prerequisite and they never met that. And that's a political decision, of course.
>See Sweden and the Euro for an example. I wouldn't suggest joining with the intention of skirting the rules. Plus, from our perspective in the Eurozone, it's not like we don't see the game Sweden is playing. Anyway, the Euro is cool. Join the Euro. Together with the Pound, the Euro will become even stronger
Fine by me. But he’s probably right. It won’t be for a long time.
My bet is that UK won't rejoin. Any union is about abandoning a part of sovereignty. UK had a lot of freedom. Even the question of national currency is way too invasive.
> Even the question of national currency is way too invasive. You say that like it is some shallow matter, and not one that also matters to half of the EU's existing members.
Well, he's 61. Gotta die someday
Hate the guy but he's probably the best looking 61 year old out there, I thought he was 45 tops until someone mentioned it
I was surprised about this too, although I thought he was in his early 50s. He’s a year older than Nigel Farage which I also found surprising (I thought Farage was way older)
I was also shocked when I found out he's 61 lol
6 months in office and he'll look 80.
The best? Ask Brad Pitt
Well best looking Brit that age
Brit Pitt
What did the human rights lawyer do to deserve your hate?
I’m pretty curious about why somebody from Iceland hates Starmer, he’s bland as hell but I wouldn’t say he’s done anything particularly hate worthy at this stage lol
To answer your question. I'm a member of Iceland's SDA (labour's sister party) and other members just keep hyping him up blindly without actually listening to what he's saying. A lot of what he's saying goes against SDA goals (I'm aware that Starmer doesn't affect Icelandic policies). Also I don't have pure hatred in my heart for him, it's just internet hyperbole, he kinda just pusses me off with his centrism. (This is not an endorsement of Corbyn btw)
He's not magic grandpa and that makes the cultists sad.
I feel Olaf Scholz also looked rather fit and well 5 years ago, not particularly *good* but what you gonna do.
It's the skin. Probably never smoked and didn't enjoy sunbathing.
I can see closer alignment on some things happening as it would make practical sense after hard Brexit. Some things have already happened like the UK rejoining Horizon Europe. The EU has offered some things already, I would wait and see after the election.
I think/hope that this is how it will go. We will just align more and more closely until opinion is solid enough to rejoin. Its one of those things which realistically might never happen or events could drive a sudden shift. Starmer would push for rejoin even after saying this if he thought it would win him the next election.
Starmer trying to ensure the red wall brexit vote. Also, UK also needs EU to welcome it back..and that might not be as easy as many in the UK wish. EU would certainly not want to be doing the Conga with each UK election cycle.
Bowler in hand..."we've brought curry..."
I personally think we'd be welcome back whenever we wanted... We are just gonna pay so much into the EU compared to what we want saying taxes will for sure inflate..
Not to mentioned that if the uk wants to rejoin ( and they will sometime in the near future ) the EU will absolutely force them to adopt the Euro
Just like they're forcing Sweden to adopt it? Maybe the Euro will actually be mandatory for new members after 30 years, but currently there's no real obligation to adopt it.
Sweden hasnt squandered its goodwill and trust with the EU. After Brexit the EU would never be so stupid to give the UK another opportunity with ironclad terms.
There should be a referendum with at least 60% (preferably 70+) voting for joining in order to guarantee a more stable membership, that I agree with. But that's still no reason to force them to use the Euro. Just Schengen would be a good start.
Lol. "Open borders from here to the Black Sea" would be how the anti-EU side would message it and that would make it an even tougher sell than "our money controlled from Germany".
>Just Schengen would be a good start Nope, thanks.
Then the UK will never rejoin. And I think you fail to see how much of a win it would be for the EU if a country with the power and influence of the UK rejoined after leaving. Giving the UK its ironclad terms could be worth it if the EU is in the position to say look the UK left and came back, what chance does other EU countries who might want to leave in the future have if the UK has decided it wants back?
Well I think it could be negotiated - currently e.g. Sweden and Poland aren't in even if they "should" be (they have agreed to join at some indefinite point). And the Danish Crown is pegged to the Euro within a band. The EU knows how to make a messy compromise. But definitely it would be almost impossible to get a deal with all the old privileges, because some stuff like the European banking authority has been relocated, logic of agricultural subsidies has probably changed (originally the UK negotiated a membership fee rebate based on receiving less subsidies) etc.
Why do the UK have to rejoin? It could easily just be like Norway and Iceland in terms of integration while still protecting what's important to it's people. Both Norway and Iceland have no intention of being full members of the EU now or in the future. So the UK could easily come into line with them so benefiting the UK and the EU. The EU is not and never has been your either in or your out. It's always been... In/out/ we kind follow your rules but have no voting rights but we don't have to follow all your rules either
>Why do the UK have to rejoin? It could easily just be like Norway and Iceland in terms of integration while still protecting what's important to it's people. What's important to brexiters is no freedom of movement. Norway has FOM.
They could do like Turkey and be in the customs union without FOM or federalism
Turkey isn't strictly in the customs union, and its agreement isn't quite what you get as a full member, either. Given that agreement was concluded as part of EU membership talks for Turkey and where those have gone since then, I very much doubt that kind of deal is going to be on the table again ever, even for prospective members, never mind for countries that don't want to become members (again).
Norway and Iceland are in Schengen… there goes your freedom of movement.
Suppose they’re gonna have to do something like that, or else Northern Ireland will just continue to slowly diverge away from GB
Good points... but UK economy is (even still) pretty huge in European terms. Not sure the Norway or Iceland model would scale. Happy to be proven wrong !
Makes sense. He wants to define policy and expectations to run the country and deal with more pressing issues like nhs and other public services. It’s better not waste everyone’s time when brexit is still a fresh memory for most. It’ll take a couple of generations to broach the subject without reopening old divisions and losing support.
Probably be more background work on aligning standards, etc, reducing friction, but yeah, given that the work of going beyond that can only work when we look like reliable partners, and that can only start when the Tories stop being anti-EU, given they could scrap any progress by the next election, the timing really isn't in Labours hands. Even the LibDems, unashamedly pro-EU, said that it's a very long road back to the EU in their manifesto.
This is a useful reminder of just how out of touch r/Europe is with regards to British attitudes towards rejoining the EU. It doesn't matter how many polls say that x% of British voters are in favour or rejoining the EU, there is very little real world appetite for reopening that can of worms. If there was we would either see a single-issue rejoin party that was threatening to undercut the major parties, like UKIP did in 2015; or an established pro-rejoin party like the Lib Dems or Greens surging in popularity. Yet neither the Lib Dems or the Greens are basing their campaign on a pledge to rejoin the EU; rejoining is in their manifestos but both acknowledge it as a long term ambition, not something that can be done in the current political climate. In fact it is Reform UK, a rebrand of the Brexit Party, who in turn was founded by former UKIP members and is now led by the most prominent Brexiteer ever; which is proving the most likely to undercut the established parties. It is not unfeasable that Reform get 4 to 5 million votes tomorrow, given that UKIP got 3.8million in 2015; how many of those voters do you think are going to be in favour of rejoining the EU? I suspect it might be Reform's recent surge in the polls (and Labour's slight decline) that has prompted Starmer to say this as an attempt to reassure anyone who might be reluctant to vote Labour because they think it might result in the UK rejoining the EU. Sure Labour might lose some committed rejoiners with this but ultimately those diehards are not important in the current political landscape of the UK.
Thanks. Its the same mess with the polls before the referendum. They ask people whether they wanna rejoin, but dont ask how and what the consequences might be. I am pretty sure that if the question gets reframed to: "Are you in favor of rejoining the EU even if this means replacing the pound with the Euro." There woudnt be a 60% turn out in favor. Just give the britons time to settle, see what being independent means and they might be able to redefine the UKs economical standing in the world. Or atleast let the super toxic EU debatte ghost away by further generations.
What about EEA or Swiss style agreements?!
That has never been on the table from the EU. The EU doesn't like the partial deal. It's just a mess. At that point just negotiate like a 3rd country and figure out what parts both sides are willing to exchange.
And the UK doesn't like free movement either. It is best to treat the UK as a Western ally like Canada rather than a potential member.
On the EEA, I doubt Norway or Iceland would let the UK join, that'd massively imbalance the power dynamics in that group. And a bilateral deal requires the EU to be willing to engage in the Swiss quagmire again (unlikely) and for the UK to be unified in wanting it (not the case until the Tories become pro-EU, which may take another decade, as they could just break any progress by winning an election at present).
Iirc, the last Norwegian government said they would veto a UK entry into the EEA.
Both have been on the table since the start of the Brexit negotiations. That would in practice require UK to follow many of the EU regulations without having the right to veto or even vote against them though.
What would be the point of EEA? EEA has customs checks same as the UK does and it doesn't eliminate all tariffs and quotas like the UK/EU FTA does. Also comes with a load of baggage like accepting EU law and paying into the budget that UKs current agreement with the EU does not require. Arguably EEA would be a downgrade for the UK.
He intends to die soon? /jk
Calls for a snap referendum day one 🤣
Not really a surprise and it’s been his mantra for a while. Brexit has irreparable damaged the relationship and any effort to rejoin will be stymied by the EUs recent surge of Russian supporters in upper echelons. (Along with the oddly punitive boner some of you lot have) Brexit is done and dusted (kinda) best we can do is make the most of the situation instead of starting the process to rejoin. I think it was an absolute mistake but trying to rejoin at the present would be another on the pile.
Excuse me. But what a load of bollocks about Russian supporters in the upper echelons. It’s impossible and unthinkable but if a serious effort to rejoin were to be contemplated, you’d be let right back in. And with tremendous gratitude and relief. With Trump, Ukraine, China, the climate crisis, migration, and other global challenges, it would be a win-win for the EU and the UK to get back together and try to form some sort of stronger union to counter these challenges. And for the punitive boner - well sure some of us enjoyed seeing football *not* coming home to England in 2021, and we might cheer for other EU-members when you enter the semifinals or the final, but that’s about it.
A lot of people in Europe took the Brexit vote extremely personally, almost as a kind of rejection of themselves and their beliefs. This was especially true of people who believe passionately in the European project, who also tend to be the sort of people who populate the upper echelons of EU decision making. They fully expect Britain to make a grovelling attempt to rejoin one day (it won’t), and that they’ll get the chance to humiliate the Brits with Carthaginian terms and demonstrate to everyone that they were right all along. Even better for them would be if Scotland and Northern Ireland (and even Wales lol) become independent and rejoined separately. You’d also have the Spanish and Greeks and whoever else all trying to extract their pound of flesh. Obviously it’s Reddit, but you can see this attitude on this sub quite a lot, as I think you can in academic literature, news-articles, op-eds etc. Thing is, even if Brexit had had an enormous and catastrophic impact on the economy (it hasn’t), Brits would probably still rather be poor than endure that sort of humiliation.
>and that they’ll get the chance to humiliate the Brits with Carthaginian terms and demonstrate to everyone that they were right all along. So is requiring to follow the same rules as everyone else - humiliation now? If they expect special treatment again and consider anything less to be humiliation then they should stay out.
In the recent EU elections, far right made big waves. Most of the far right parties are either supported by or has direct ties to the Kremlin (such as National Rally in France, AfD in Germany), China (Vlaams Belang in Belgium) or various American think tanks. It's not wrong to state that there are foreign agents/supporters with anti-EU sentiments now in the upper echelons or the EU.
Oh the European contempt is very real, whether it's simply wanting to cheer for any team but England, disparage UK tourists, downplay UK foreign policy, repeatedly stereotype the UK or point to laugh at every bit of UK misfortune; you need only read UK related post on here to see how little people like the UK. It's become pretty obvious for quite along time now that the UK is not appreciated in Europe in the same way the US is not appreciated. Time to just accept it and move along. But you are correct, the only reason some Europeans would want the UK back is because suddenly there are bigger things to worry about than sticking it to the Brits.
I think you underestimate the impact that a "we want England to lose" every two years sentiment will do to the average voter in terms of their emotional closeness to Europe.
He's not completely wrong tho. It would definitely cost us a few ~~mansions for Orban~~ released payments...
We won't join unless we can negotiate some of the terms, we won't adopt the euro for example and we will want protections for financial services. Its just not possible to sell the euro to the British public which is very agaisnt it. It means britian will always be out, unless the EU becomes more flexible. Britain was a net contributor to the EU for 20+ years, for many of those it was the second highest, there's no way the British public will accept being treat like a new applicant or a reciever even if that's an arrogant belief. Ultimately Britain joining the customs union might be possible but it all hinges on how flexible the EU is.
I guess you're right about the British public but the European public is very against a special treatment for the UK and tbh I don't see any need to. I mean, neither the UK nor the EU are interested in the UK joining back, while the UK has been a powerful member it also has been a big stopper for the EU as it had its own agenda very much opposite to the other members. Also the UK had special conditions the EU can't offer to new members as it'd be a dangerous precedent, why would others comply with requirements and regulations? While the world may change in 10 years I agree it's very difficult we will see the UK interested in joining again, with or without special treatment, afaik there is no debate about it. But well, let's see how Russia keeps pushing Europe, new alliances may be born.
Just have to say that the UK was not a big stopper for the EU it voted in favour for pretty much every EU measure and constitution. It was france and Netherlands who rejected the EU constitution in 2005 leading to negotiating the Lisbon treaty in 2007. Official voting records show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999, meaning the British government has voted against EU laws only 2% of the time since 1999. However from 2009-2015 we voted agaisnt 12% of measures. Which was the same time Cameron won power. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/ It was Cameron and the new Conservative party after brown that began to ruin our relationship with europe when he vetoed the treaty on the eurozone crisis but that was the only time since 1973. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/09/david-cameron-blocks-eu-treaty
They were right to veto the Eurozone crisis work as it tried to pull in non-Euro members into funding the bailout. It was a stupid, cycnical move by other EU members that should never have seen the light of day. it shoudl have been Eurozone members only from day 1.
I'd note that the UK was much less of a 'stopper' than almost any other member state, as we were, almost uniquely among the major economies, prepared to compromise when the community wanted something that didn't suit us. That's why Schengen and the Euro went ahead despite them not suiting the UK (we could have vetoed, but chose to allow the programs on condition that we get an opt-out), but CFP and CAP reform were blocked time and time again (by Spain and France, since they stood to lose out from any reform). Hell, the EU parliament is still driving lorryloads of boxes back and forth from Strasbourg to Brussels and back every session because the French and Belgians refuse to allow any change that might mean their people get less EU money.
>it also has been a big stopper for the EU as it had its own agenda very much opposite to the other members. This has shown to be wrong since they left, there has been no big leap in pro Europe integration and it looks like countries such as France are pulling to the right.
>. I mean, neither the UK nor the EU are interested in the UK joining back, Do you have any source for it?
Contrary to a lot of commentary online the UK doesn't need the EU. It would benefit from being back in the EU, but it's not like we're going to tumble into being a poor irrelevant state. That gives negotiating power. Both the UK and EU would benefit from a return, but neither require the other to flourish.
Yeah, exactly. It is like Canada doing fine as an independent nation from the USA.
> Ultimately Britain joining the customs union might be possible but it all hinges on how flexible the EU is. I doubt the EU has any interest in that, it's basically what Brexiteers wanted. I'm all for the UK either joining or going their own way, but strictly against cherry picking.
Wouldn’t it be a win-win if the UK joined the customs Union?
I'm sure most of the EU countries would welcome UK back under the exact same agreement as before leaving.
"most" isn't good enough though.
What does he gain from this speech? It is probably the first subject that he has an opinion and it's this one.
Makes it clear he won't spent his term trying to negotiate the UK back into the EU.
They're about to get a landslide. Why was it necessary to "make it clear" now, literally the day before people go to the polls?
Eliminates some of the doubts people might have about voting for him.
Because he's trying to cut a chunk of the Reform vote out. If he can keep working class leave voters from going to Reform, that'll make it much more likely that Reform don't get more than a couple of seats, which makes it much less likely they'll be a problem down the line. Starmer's biggest worry at this point is that Reform might get enough of a bloc in parliament for them to become the dominant force on the right. As shit as the tories are, they're at least not aligned with Putin.
Probably the conservatives would try to smear him as an EU supporter and he tries to deflect that. Also, the UK isn't going to rejoin for another decade if ever, so why not loudly rule it out?
It is one of the bullshit claims going out in official tory campaign literature (along with things like 'he might give immigrants and prisoners the vote' or 'open borders, raiding pensions and endless tax rises). I've had 2 letters making those bullshit claims. One signed by Boris Johnson that reads like a 12 year old who was told to do a persuasive letter for homework and did it on the bus to school, and one creative if shit one purporting to be a letter from me 20 years in the future (sadly failing to include the scores for the rest of the games in the Euros or any good stock tips)
A larger majority in the election I imagine. Not sure what good that does him. A simple majority is enough for basically everyhting in the UK system.
a small majority means he can be held up by his far left wing. A super majority gives him the room to ignore his left and totally ignore the rump conservative right.
He’s giving the signal that they won’t try to rejoin the EU. This may bring in voters who are sceptical of the EU, but also voters who are looking for stability after many years of turmoil.
Political calculation...he needs the red wall vote tomorrow and to spike Reform/Tory efforts
He’s setting expectations. There are still many who think he wil rejoin the EU, he’s being clear that will not happen, at least while he is in power.
Why do they choose between two parties only?
Because of the first past the post electoral system which encourages and requires tactical voting. Due to the spoiler effect, if you don't like the incumbents, you must vote for the second largest or second-most-likely-to-win party. Voting for anyone else is effectively a vote for the incumbents. Thus, first past the post systems devolve into a two party system where voters are forced to vote for the least worst of two major parties
Wow thank you for the in depth explanation
Welcome to the fresh hell that is "first past the post".
Then I shall not be voting for you in my lifetime
He’s just stating reality. I wish it weren’t so and I bet he does too, but we are where we are
Sadly, I think he is just being realistic rather than ideologically opposed to rejoining the EU. We had a good deal as a member and we f***ed it
it will not happen in the next 20-30 years. everyone with a brain knew that when brexit happened.
WTF is Starmer?
The next British pm
Leader of the opposition and the guy which pretty much every poll indicates will have the largest Parliamentary majority in like 200 years.
Only because of how bad the tories are though, he’ll have the largest majority in however many years without making people like him or the party it’s actually kind of impressive
Yeah it mostly is, but Labour have done a brilliant job of steadying their vote share while the Tories have completely collapsed. Any party getting 40%-odd in any country would be pretty happy. It wouldn’t be impossible for both parties to have collapsed under the worst case. We saw that just a few years ago in the EU elections. However, Starmer has taken Labour from 32% of the vote share in 2019 to likely somewhere in the 39%-42% region.
Doesn't Corbyn was already at that region before the 2019 fiasco
Yes, but he was really strong in areas where Labour was already strong. Starmer might well get a smaller percentage of the vote, but the vote share seems to be shared across the country much more - leading to more seats. Obviously helped by the Conservative collapse.
I think the tories performance over the last 4 years has a lot to do with it
As well as getting rid of Corbyn.
Only because of a failure of our electoral system more like. Polls show they'll get less than 40% of the vote but will have a massive majority. I don't want the right wing headbangers in power anymore than the next guy but that's ridiculous.
And has recanted on every promise.
I still dont quite understand how rejoining can be this controversial when some 65% think Brexit was a mistake and rejoining is at something like 54% support?
It's just not feasible, as things stand "rejoining" means going cap in hand to brussels and getting told to fuck off by the spanish and/or the french at a minimum, that's political suicide and Starmer obviously doesn't want to do that.
54% can quickly become 46%. The margin is too small to make decisions on.
You should have told them before the referendum
Why bother? The referendum is only going to be an advisory one, and definitely won't pass anyway. There's no way we're going to leave the EU, especially if only a small margin want it, and double especially if there's low turn out. /s I do wonder when the next UK referendum on anything is going to happen, with all the heavy hitting ones they had in the 2010s.
Because stats can tell you whatever you want to be told. In practice the desire to rejoin is weak. If the campaign to stay out started things would soon look different. It's as much about the process as the end state. Being in the EU? Yeah, whatever. Going through the painful national debate, then the rejoin process? Lol, no chance mate.
The mistake cost us our privileges in the EU that’s where most of that comes from. Rejoining as a standard new member would see support drop off a cliff. If for arguments sake the EU offered to let us back in with no strings attached as it was before we’d rejoin in a heartbeat but without the privileges we enjoyed before hand it will be a harder sell.
Nice, another politician with zero vision
He is stating the truth
It’s too long of a time to call. Much more can change in 10 years than we are bold enough to predict now. But as things stand it’s accurate. It’s something that would be for the best, but people in the UK and the EU are just too ‘emotionally exhausted’ to do.
The honest and harsh truth is. The UK will not return into the EU for at least the next 30 to 50 years. The reason: 1. How would the EU look, if they let anybody exit and right back in, as it does not work out as thought? Noone would take the EU serious anymore. 2. To prevent other members to do the same mistake as the UK. 3. Not that important for a reason, but the UK deserves this, to let you taste your own tea. Tastes good, hu? Being a difficult partner the last 1.5 decat was not fun, working with you guys. Blocking shit for stupid reason, get you this. If you really want to fasten the process, my recommendation would be going after the politicians and royals who are responsible for your situation and getting them behind bars. Building a new party that is more democratic and trying to rejoining the EU in 10 years after a good relationship in between. So bye bye, see you later in 50 years back in the EU.
Rejoining the single market and creating a customs union is possible, simply because it’s an absolute necessity. Every party’s economic plans are useless without doing so. That said, bilateral deals are probably off the table for the EU as the Swiss deal is a nightmare. Leave voters should walk around with a sign around their neck saying sorry to everyone else. It’s not really enough to say “we were lied to”. I can think of three major studies, published before the vote, outlining how much of a disaster it was economically and - most importantly- for citizens rights. Nobody read them.
Feeling is mutual from the EU side. Too much broken glass there
Despite the headline this story has nothing to do with Brexit or rejoining the EU and has everything to do with Starmer retaining traditional Labour voters who defected to the Conservative party in the last election to make sure Brexit happened. A couple of weeks ago the Conservatives had been putting about a story that Starmer would seek to rejoin the EU as an attempt to stop those voters from going back to Labour. This is him putting out that fire the Conservatives tried to start.
No reason for UK to join the EU. It's as unlikely and unnecessary as New Zealand, Japan or Canada joining.
How exactly is this guy any different from a Tory?
To be honest, Labour is basically a Conservatives B side nowadays. So I don't have hopes that he makes life easier for us Europeans on his side of the channel. Still, not making it *harder* is already a start.
How is life harder for Europeans in the UK relative to any other immigrant group?
I don't see a point in that. It's done and move on living with new reality. It would just be unnecessary waste of time and resources instead of focusing on something else. At least when talking about near future.
Scotland will. We are still adamant to rejoin. Every single part of scotland voted to remain. SNP still brings it up in Westminster and still is our plan if we get independence. Our hope and future is with the rest of Europe!
Starmer has already said he wont allow a second vote. Most countries dont allow votes or even independence parties, so UDI is also off the table as there will be no EU or major international support.
You checked the polls on Scottish independence recently? The SNP had two generational talents in Salmond and Sturgeon that massively boosted them. Now both their careers have imploded. Scotland won't be independent in Starmer's lifetime either.
[удалено]
The question is not whether he's right or wrong. Obviously, no one can tell. I'm sure in 2010 most politicians would have said they do not see the UK leaving within their lifetimes. The question I have is why is he saying that? To me it seems like he knows that Brexit is a divisive issue. He cannot voice any opinion either way without upsetting many voters and yet Brexit is still a large elephant in the room. So he has to address it. This sounds to me like he wants to frame Brexit as this natural development outside the scope of politics in order to avoid formulating his opinion. In reality of course Brexit is a highly political question and as the likely future PM he must have an opinion on Britain's future relationship with Europe.
Just another daily reminder that people are not voting for Labour but against the Conservatives (and what they stand for including Brexit). If all Labour is going to offer for the future is nothing, then they will be out after one term.
All in all, I think the last years have been proof the Brexit has been a loss for the UK more than it was a loss for the EU.
I'm willing to trade
But the Republic of Scotland will. (:
He said no second referendum for Scotland as well. He will likely be PM for the next 10-15 years.
I was sad to see them leave, but now I don't really want them back in.
I'm an older person and I would rejoin tomorrow if given the chance. I've been waiting for the first party to say they will rejoin because that's where my vote would go.