Is Brexit reversible? James L. Newell examines what the prohibition of alcohol in the United States can tell us about the potential to reverse seemingly irreversible policy decisions.
Sometimes, the idea of reversing Brexit can seem like an insurmountable challenge. While in May, 55% of people thought that it was wrong to leave the European Union, a mere 7%, according to Ipsos Mori’s Issues Index, mentioned Brexit as one of the most important issues facing Britain today. However, history shows that monumental shifts in policy can be reversed. If we look to the example of the United States’ reversal of Prohibition in 1933, we find valuable lessons that suggest reversing Brexit may be more achievable than people think.
Prohibition and Brexit
Prohibition, the nationwide ban on the production, sale and transportation of alcoholic beverages in the United States from 1920 to 1933, serves as an intriguing case study. When it was first enacted with the passage of the 18th Amendment in 1919, many believed it would be nearly impossible to abolish.
For one thing, it was driven by the temperance movement, which had strong support from religious and moral organisations. The widespread and deeply-held belief that prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol would lead to a more virtuous society – a bit like the belief that Brexit will improve UK society – made it challenging to question the idea of Prohibition.
For another thing, the belief that alcohol consumption led to social problems such as crime, domestic violence and poverty made it difficult for critics to argue against Prohibition without being seen as disregarding public well-being. Moreover, Prohibition had significant political support from powerful interest groups, such as the Anti-Saloon League and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. These organisations had significant lobbying power and were able to sway public opinion and influence lawmakers. Their political clout made it challenging to question or repeal Prohibition laws.
However, the policy, initially seen as a moral victory, soon faced widespread opposition and unintended consequences including the rise of organised crime, violence and corruption; significant losses of tax revenue, exacerbating the government’s difficulties in dealing with the Great Depression; widespread non-compliance; and the growing realisation among politicians that Prohibition was untenable. Sound familiar? The story of Prohibition therefore provides valuable insights into how seemingly irreversible policies can be reversed.
Reversing the irreversible
The key factor in reversing any policy is the shifting tide of public opinion. Prohibition faced mounting public disillusionment as people witnessed its unintended consequences. Similarly, the impact of Brexit, from economic concerns to the complexities of disentangling from the EU, has led to a growing segment of the population reconsidering their support for leaving.
As public opinion evolves, therefore, the prospect of reversing Brexit may become more feasible. Thus, while Brexit may matter less to voters than it once did, a majority of voters still identify as either ‘Leavers’ or ‘Remainers’ and, as Sara Hobolt and James Tilley point out in a recent article, this suggests Brexit ‘could become a salient dividing line in day-to-day British politics again, especially if events and political competition bring UK-EU relations back on to the front pages’.
One crucial aspect of reversing policies is acknowledging and learning from the mistakes made. Prohibition’s failure to achieve its intended goals was a significant factor in its eventual reversal. Similarly, the complexities and challenges that emerged during the Brexit process have highlighted the shortcomings of leaving the EU. By reflecting on these mistakes and understanding their consequences, we can pave the way for a more informed decision on whether to reverse Brexit.
An alternative narrative
To reverse a significant policy shift, proponents must present a compelling alternative vision. Prohibition’s downfall was in part due to the emergence of a compelling alternative narrative that emphasised responsible consumption, regulation and taxation. In the context of Brexit, those advocating for reversal need to articulate a compelling vision that addresses concerns raised by Leave supporters while emphasising the benefits of maintaining a close relationship with the EU. This alternative vision can help bridge the divide and rally support for a reconsideration of Brexit.
Leadership and political will are crucial in effecting policy reversals. In the case of Prohibition, it was a combination of strong leadership and the recognition of the policy’s flaws that led to its repeal. Similarly, reversing Brexit will require visionary leaders who can navigate the complex political landscape, engage in constructive dialogue and make a compelling case for reconsideration. By fostering a sense of unity and understanding, political leaders can facilitate the reversal of Brexit.
In short, while reversing Brexit may seem like an immense challenge, history offers valuable insights and hope. The example of Prohibition in the United States demonstrates that seemingly entrenched policies can be reversed through shifting public opinion, learning from mistakes, crafting compelling alternatives and strong leadership. As the realities of Brexit become clearer and its consequences more apparent, the possibility of reversing the decision grows. By applying the lessons learned from history, we can approach the task of reversing Brexit with renewed optimism and determination.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Simon Walker / No 10 Downing Street (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
No leader of a political party in Britain can win an election while advocating joining the EU. There is also no positive case joining the EU, being subject again to its ever-expanding body of undemocratic law, paying £500m a week to it (the U.K. gross contribution would now be £30bn per year) and having unlimited immigration from Eastern Europe. Remain should have learnt this in 2016 but had to resort to Project Fear when their spokespeople were crushed in debate.
The few Brexiteers left are not rational. Brexit growing fiasco is giving so much on their heads that they cannot think straight. The uk used to pay £186 million to the EU per week and get back £2 billion per week back im terms of trade. Brexit made uk’s problem bigger. Until brexiteers do not get real about brexit the uk will keep sinking. It is hard to watch honestly.
“The few Brexiteers left are not rational.”
Hmm, I thought LSE objected to rudeness – but maybe it depends to whom…
More importantly – about “getting real”.
How about some “real” analysis on numbers / data instead of that nonsense. (sorry, misunderstanding!)
“The uk used to pay £186 million to the EU per week and get back £2 billion per week back im terms of trade. ”
Firstly, that “£186m” is the net payment after all the £££ bilions paid back by the EU for things the EU approved.
The actual figure “paid” to the EU (after the Thatcher rebate) was around £290m per week.
Secondly, that trade figure is way too low.
More importantly if it is a volume figure, it cannot meaningfully be compared with an actual cost.
Pre-Covid:
Exports to the EU were about £ 3.8 billion per week.
Imports from the EU were about £5.7 billion per week.
Why on earth were we paying anything for the dubious privilege of locking in a “loss” ?
The analogy is interesting, even encouraging. But there are two major distinctions that make reversing Brexit even more urgent. Firstly, it may have been a unilateral decision by the UK, but (unlike Prohibition) reversing it requires not merely the consent of the EU, but its active participation in negotiating terms of our re-entry. It will take time for the EU to accept us, and our having to accept the consequences of our wholly unnecessary departure will be very painful politically. Secondly we are at a crucial stage in history as the world transitions from an unsustainable fossil fuel based phase to (one must hope) a sustainable one largely based on newly developed renewable technologies. For so long as the UK remans cut off from the core of all this new activity the further behind we will fall, and the harder it will be for us to catch up, if we ever can.
Accordingly, the sooner we can all get behind a policy for reversing Brexit the better. Starmer’s failure to acknowledge this bodes ill for the future. Maybe he is keeping his cards close to his chest until after the next general election, but that is not an encouraging sign in one who would be a leader.
Very funny article. Thanks for the laugh.
An interesting comparison, and I can see the similarities. There is however one major difference (that ever so daunting ceteris paribus clause). The US could unilaterally end prohibition, since it was national law. Reversing brexit requires the agreement of simultaneously the UK, the EU and all 28 nation states (sometimes with more than one parliament per country), each with veto rights. It is very unlikely the UK will be granted the same opt-outs it had when leaving, so it will never receive the statu quo ante. I, for one, don’t believe this will be acceptable, even to remainers/rejoiners. So, whatever clever leadership is applied, I cannot see Britain returning to EU membership in my lifetime.
Very hypothetical, because the government only had to deal with itself when it came to prohibition/reversal.
Even if UK wanted to reverse Brexit, there are still thirty sovereign foreign countries with their own ideas.
My impression is that the U.K. still has to suffer and learn quite a bit before they would be welcome to “re”-join the new EU that has grown out of the personal slight of Brexit. Brexit validated de Gaulle’s opposition that ran much deeper than denial of cakeism.
Adopt the Euro and ECB banking regulations would be the very least.
Proportional representation and an honest federal structure would be better.
Like all Empires when they collapse the English ( Not British ) Empire will continue to harbour dilusional nostalgic visions of greatness. Until reality comes to the front door this self delusion will continue while the perpetrators of this UK self harm will continue to plunder the Country coffers for all they’re worth until they are stopped, by which time they will have feathered their nests elsewhere and left the rest of us in the mire.
Brexit is not helping the uk at all. Few brexiteers left around. The uk used to have the best deal when we were in the uk. We used to pay £186 million per week and get £ 2billion per week in trade per week. Brexit was a big act of self sabotage. It made the uk’s problems worse. The uk imposed trade sanctions on itself.
“We used to pay £186 million per week and get £ 2billion per week in trade per week.”
When an EU fan mis-uses data, one can never be sure of bad faith or lack of numeracy.
A membership fee of £186 million per week (or £290m per week, ignoring all the grants the EU graciously returned to us for projects they approved of)….
….is completed unrelated to £ 2 billion trade per week…..
(….which is too low a figure anyway (pre-Covid))
The former is a cost.
The second is a volume figure.
Except for goods sold on as a profit, import amounts are the cost of supplies.
What matters is whether a profit can be made – so ideally we should like a smaller number for imports !
As it happens, your trade numbers are wrong.
Imports were about £5.7 B per week.
Exports were about £3.8 B per week.
Surely the Quesion EU fans should answer is:
Why should we have been paying anything for the dubious privilege of locking in a “loss”?
“we find valuable lessons that suggest reversing Brexit may be more achievable than people think.”
But why would anyone want to “reverse Brexit” ?
This article doesn’t give a reason.
Neither do any of those who say – repeat after me – “disaster”, “calamity” “self-harm” – actually spell out the problems they imagine have been caused – and with data….
Ooops, sorry, I forgot.
Apparently some people don’t like the extra seconds to get a stamp in their passport.
They seem completely unaware of the people who actually DO like their passport stamped !
The most ardent EU fans continue to ignore Independence – the single biggest reason to vote Leave.
Some are in denial. Others just don’t care.
Brexit is costing the uk £100 billion per year, low export, low manufacturing , worst Inflation of the G20. We are the only country in the G7 thay still have to recover to pre pandemic level. You very few brexiteers cannot hide forever. Until the likes of you do not get real about brexit fiasco the uk will keep sinking. We have no independence. The uk was one of the most important rule makers in Europe while in the EU. We are rule takers now
Pin,
From where do you get your figures ?
And are you cherry-picking particular months for comparison ?
How is Brexit “costing the UK £100 billion per year” ?
Is that actually a volume figure ?
If it is, then it is not a “cost”.
“low export” ???…. not recovered to pre-pandemic ???
(Have you been reading the Guardian ?)
UK exports are the highest ever. See ONS.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-trade-in-numbers/uk-trade-in-numbers-web-version#export-statistics
“worst inflation” ?
Have you checked Italy’s ?
Or Germany’s food price inflation – 19% versus the UK’s 16%.
If you think that the UK was a “rule maker” then you have no idea how the EU works.
And as for being a “rule taker”.
Please cite one UK internal law that we have been compelled to introduce (or one affecting how we interact with RoW).
Brexiteers have no reason to “hide” – however many times EU-fanatics claim “fiasco” or “disaster”.
But those who persistently fight the last war using dodgy data ought to !
So the optimistic case is that when a real crisis like the Great Depression comes along, a decade after leaving (2030 onwards), the government might start looking at rejoining. Getting the political and journalistic classes behind it would take a couple of years. Talks with the EU can start as soon as the EU is then convinced the government is serious (and trustworthy), say 2035 to 2040. A few years to a decade to negotiate entry (no time pressure!). By 2045 to 2050 the UK could be back in.
That seems about right, actually. But it is a long time to survive. A deal to accept EU regulations will look tempting throughout this process. And joining Schengen will too. As will joining the PEM convention.
Correct
Brexit was a project of Billionaire offshore account holders anxious to avoid an EU clampdown and any restriction on their ability to make and hoard wealth at the expense of those who generate it. They own and/or control most of our media, who will continue to voice lies and distortions on their behalf. Thus it will be very difficult to change the opinions of the politically unengaged in our society.
But not impossible. As living standards plummet and it becomes less easy to blame the pandemic or the war in Ukraine, more and more people are beginning to recognise that Brexit is a disaster. The problem is that it is only just becoming acceptable to utter the B word on any platform.
Go so far as to mention rejoining and ridicule ensues, despite this being the most blatantly obvious answer to many of our self imposed problems.
It will take time.
The EU isn’t that great. Rejoining it is not worth the effort. The biggest downside of leaving was the leaving process and disruption. The shock to business expectations etc… But we’re out. We should stay out. Otherwise we create instability for business once again. Britain will change due to not being in the EU and therefore rejoining will be even harder in future.