What would it take for the UK to rejoin the EU? Anthony Salamone sets out how the UK would have to change and the demands the Union would make. Abandoning its opt-outs, the UK would have to start from scratch and accept being a more normal member state – and thus make its second EU membership much more positive and inclusive.
With Brexit now imminent, proponents of EU membership are already considering the possibility of the UK rejoining the EU in perhaps five or ten years’ time. This prospect raises important political questions which would have to be addressed before the UK took even the first step towards renewed membership.
Article 50 TEU is famous for its brevity and has been subject to interpretation throughout the process of Brexit – most definitively by the EU Court of Justice, in its ruling that a member state’s withdrawal notification can be unilaterally revoked. However, on rejoining it is perfectly clear. A former member state seeking to return must apply under Article 49 – that is, the normal accession procedure.
The UK would have to start from scratch: a letter of application to the European Council, assessment of its candidacy by the European Commission and a decision by the Council on whether to make the UK a candidate country. If successful, the subsequent processes of negotiation, ratification and implementation would have to follow. While these steps would have a flair of the bizarre, given that the UK was previously a member state for 47 years and a powerful member at that, the EU is a legalistic organisation bound by its treaties. It would be unwise for the UK to push for a different accession procedure. Instead, it could accelerate the process by ensuring that its laws and policies meet EU standards and by fulfilling all the requirements placed upon it expeditiously.
The UK would have to demonstrate that it satisfied the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership, and secure agreement from the member states that they had the political will and the EU had institutional capacity to readmit it. Enlargement requires unanimity – so would any member potentially veto the UK’s application?
In present circumstances, we might imagine countries like Germany (big country ally), Ireland (most adversely affected by Brexit), the Netherlands and Denmark (like-minded partners) and Poland (many citizens living in the UK) being particularly supportive. France could likely protest in some form, but might be persuaded in the end if it was content with the UK’s accession terms.
These political dynamics would depend in large part upon how the UK conducts itself in the Brexit era. The UK’s approach to the forthcoming future relationship negotiations, how it treats EU citizens and their families, and its trade, tax, social, environmental and labour regimes in the years ahead would all be factors. The shape of the EU-UK strategic partnership would also be an important consideration.
A successful future application for EU membership would have to be predicated upon a new political consensus in the UK. The EU would look for significant, stable and long-lasting majority public opinion in favour of rejoining. Support for EU membership on the order of 60-65 per cent or more for several years would likely be a minimum standard. If the UK were to bid for membership in the absence of such consensus, its application would undoubtedly be rejected. The EU will not voluntarily import an unstable member state or risk another Brexit down the road.
The EU would also expect any application to be on the understanding that the UK would be a more normal member state. The UK’s major concessions during its first EU membership – the budget rebate, opt-outs on the euro and Schengen, special justice and home affairs arrangements – would not be on offer. The UK was largely responsible for the opt-out culture, which is still bemoaned by much of the Brussels establishment. The European Commission is currently seeking to eliminate all budget rebates (following from the UK, other countries have rebates and ‘rebates on rebates’) for the next Multiannual Financial Framework.
As a full participating EU member state, the UK would resolve outstanding issues. Its regular membership would allow Ireland to join Schengen and put pressure on Denmark to give up its euro opt-out.
The question also arises of whether the EU might adopt a formal multi-tiered membership structure – and the UK could instead join an outer tier. However, the EU will be unlikely to move in that direction in the foreseeable future, not least due to opposition from those member states which fear being relegated to the outer tiers.
During the accession process, the UK would have to undo whatever divergence it had effected from EU values and standards in the Brexit era and converge back with the EU acquis. Depending on its depth, the EU-UK partnership could be the basis for the pre-accession phase, potentially complemented by a new Association Agreement. If the UK did in future depart from the European Convention on Human Rights – either by leaving the Convention or suspending implementing Court judgements – the EU would insist it fully reintegrate into that as well.
Provided it was successful in rejoining the EU, the UK would have the opportunity to conduct its second EU membership completely differently. It could develop a comprehensive EU strategy, outlining its major policy themes and priorities for the EU and setting out the UK’s positive and forward-looking vision for Europe. The UK could put in place structures to include the devolved political institutions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (assuming they all remain in the UK) in its EU decision-making, providing them with genuine access and influence.
Renewed EU membership would require the UK to become fully integrated into the core of Europe. Its pursuit would have to be grounded in major UK-level political change and a new consensus on the EU. Once the UK experiences the Brexit era, with diminished influence and voice in the world, perhaps opinion in England and Wales will shift and people will look to regain some of what has been lost. Seeking to rejoin the EU would have to result from genuine reflection, not expedient self-interest. After the Brexit saga, the UK will owe that much to the EU – and to itself.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor LSE.
There is virtually no chance of a 65% consensus on anything that appertains to the EU for at least the next decade in which the Tories will be in power. The chances of re-joining the EU in this generation are as remote as any political issue can be. By the time the UK has come back together in any coherent manner as one nation, the EU will be a very different organisation to the one we left operating in a very different world.
When has the UK ever been as one? It’s always been split left and right it’s just a bit different now.
The only option for strongly pro European British people is to leave the country, and to do it fast before transition ends.
Once that has happened, our very own soft “Berlin Wall” will descend.
If you want your children to have the opportunities afforded by EU citizenship, you really have no other choice.
I hold the same view as Joe – so have just moved to the EU. I hope things work out well for the UK, its eventual rejoining, and for those who stay, but would rather not take the chance.
– what you mean like the high unemployment and low pay that all the Eu countries have except germany?
– maybe you could send your offspring to work in poland, or portugal, even greece. that will give them a taste of what the EU is all about. make them earn their pay, no parents bailouts. see if they last 6 months.
P.s. in the legions of locals that cannot find work, you may find that very few speak english, and you will be required to better the locals in the local language aswell.
‘LOL”
Will the UK be the UK as we know it today? Given the demographics, I expect the island of Ireland to be one political entity as a part of the EU within the next 5 – 10 years. Scotland could also go down that road, if Westminster really oppresses the Scots in the wake of an enormous Tory majority.
Certainly there are circumstances whereby Britain might very well apply to rejoin the eu; but those would involve considerable reform to the eu: radical reform to eu spending so that eu accounts, unlike 20 previous years, cease to be qualified every year, radical reform to the system of appointment for senior officials so that they cannot simply be shoehorned into posts via cronyism and boardroom coup, radical reform to the powers of the eu parliament so that the eu’s only democratically accountable assembly ceases to be simply a rubber stamp, radical reform to the eu’s judiciary so that it ceases to be a politicised and wholly partial advocate of ever closer union…..and so on.
The British electorate is a sophisticated one, cherishing political freedom, democratically accountable representation, above all else. Until the eu can offer that, Britain will never rejoin….and the eu, an unreformed, doubtless unreformable, imperial court will never offer that.
History suggests how all such empires may end…….
I have to question the validity of your statement: “The British electorate is a sophisticated one, cherishing political freedom, democratically accountable representation, above all else.”
The House of Lords is neither democratic OR accountable and filled with a large number of ex MPs rejected at the ballot box. And the First Past the Post system can hardly be described as truly democratic either.
I agree that the house of lords should be abolished. Its role of scrutinising legislation could no doubt be achieved more effectively in a number of other ways.
Radical reform of the house of lords is, I believe, imminent and long overdue.
Of course, the parliament act ensures the primacy of the truly democratically accountable house of commons over the appointed, so democratically unaccountable, house of lords.
First past the post is one of any number of democratic electoral systems that have, each, a whole range of advantages and disadvantages.
Nevertheless, at the 2011 alternative vote referendum, the British electorate decided decisively 68/32 in favour of first past the post and there is an end to it.
Democracy……the least worst system of government
Alternative Voting is not a form of Proportional Voting. So the UK has not yet had a say on whether it wants PR voting for the House of Commons, general election.
Lest we forget the UK uses it for elections to it’s devolved administrations, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London.
Unfortunately the performance in government of these devolved administrations do not appear to be a great advertisement for anything, least of all their system of voting. Less government is required to prevent more harm!
You clearly don’t understand the House of Lords. They do not block the elected House of Commons but will ensure things are fully discussed. First past the post ensures Govts can actually function without the shambles we had in 2019.
From Northern Ireland, this gives me a glimmer of hope. But more interested in your thoughts on Scotland Ireland and Northern Ireland (SCINI) becoming the Northern Benelux of Europe?!???
Plans for a SCINI federation are somewhat premature at the moment. We need to see how things settle down in the next few weeks and months. However something like this may become increasingly attractive if the Brexit process goes “pear shaped” any time in the future.
As a committed UK unionist, and committed supporter of the EU, I applaud your attempts to make the views of such people heard in these increasingly discordant times.
Just how long in terms of years will it take before we can apply to rejoin. Would lobbying our MP’s help.