I smoked cigarettes from the age of about 15 until I was in my early thirties. It was an addiction I probably tried to quit at least once a year and did so for periods varying between a few days to six months but I always succumbed to the old craving again, until my eldest daughter was born. That finally gave me the impetus to do it, and it was surprisingly easy. I always tell people they too can give up the weed if they really want to do, adding that the word ‘want’ is the key one. It isn’t enough to think you must, should, could, need or ought to do. That won’t work unless you WANT to do, and then it’s not difficult at all. I relate this because of a Substack blog by Tom Hayes, an Irishman living in France and formerly a labour relations consultant.
Mr Hayes is a Europhile and often tweets about Brexit both on X and BlueSky. His blog post begins: "Will the UK ever rejoin the EU? I’m not convinced it will."
The post was in response to a paper by Andrew Duff, is a former MEP and President of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) and President of the Spinelli Group. Mr Duff now works with the European Policy Centre for which he has published: Reversing Brexit: why, how and when
Mr Hayes takes issue with Duff, although I am not sure the two men are very far apart, and let me say I agree with them both. The only real difference is that Hayes is a pessimist on Britain rejoining the EU while Duff is an optimist. They both acknowledge it won't be easy and I am quite certain that's right.
The abstract to the EPC paper says the UK "has a history of flip-flopping on Europe" and that the EU is "not ready to welcome the UK back to the fold" but says "Nonetheless, both sides stand to benefit economically were the UK to re-enter a customs union and the single market."
All true, I'm sure.
Andrew Duff speculates that: "Starmer will eventually follow the example of previous prime ministers and make a U-turn on Europe. Economic facts and geopolitical necessity must outweigh British nationalism."
If you substitute 'a British prime minister' for 'Starmer' the differences between the two are negligible and Hayes admits, "it is the next five years that will dictate the relationship between the UK and the EU."
Those who thought leaving the EU would be easy, probably also think rejoining will simply be a matter of rocking up at the Berlaymont in Brussels smartly dressed with an Article 49 application in hand and the EU will fast-track membership for its wayward former member.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Hayes on the obstacles ahead. It will be a long hard road, there is no doubt about it. But I am not quite as pessimistic as he is. To go back to my smoking analogy, Britain will rejoin when it really wants to.
When I started this blog seven years ago many hoped to have a second referendum and somehow avoid Brexit, I wrote this in the About section:
"I believe Brexit is going to come. Indeed it must come. Nothing less will be able to convince those who voted to leave the EU that we were actually better off inside the largest, closest and richest trading bloc on earth. The economy must take a bit of damage. But we do need to begin now the long hard road to obtain a new referendum as soon as politically possible to take us back in. The annual increase in younger people joining the electorate and being far more pro-EU than older voters will bring about a balance quicker than we might think."
And by 'politically possible' and 'really want' I mean desperate to become a member once more.
Britain has flip-flopped on Europe but every member state has a minority opposed to membership. Even in 1975 during the first referendum, there was a lot of opposition. Our accession certainly wasn’t universally welcomed as the NO leaflet sent to every household makes abundantly clear. And at the moment polls are about 60-40 in favour of rejoining - not that far away from the 67-33 result in 1975 and better than in some existing EU members.
Pew Research shows the EU is seen unfavourably by 50% in Greece, 41% in France and 39% in Hungary. The only difference is that our politicians were daft enough to give the decision to the electorate who didn't understand any of the immensely complex issues or trade-offs involved.
The FT has seen a a 19-page working paper prepared by the Commission setting out EU interests before negotiations begin on the 'reset' that Britain is asking for. It concludes there are “limited” economic gains (for them) on offer as a result of the UK’s own red lines ruling out rejoining the EU’s single market or customs union or accepting free movement of people.
The EU have several key asks themselves, mobility and access to fish in UK waters being the main ones.
However, the important bit concerns Labour's openly stated position of negotiating a “veterinary agreement” with the EU. This is spoken of in Labour circles almost as a given, something Brussels would offer in a heartbeat and it may be true, but the EU paper insists that “this will require ‘dynamic alignment’ requiring the UK to automatically transcribe EU rules into its own statute book,” with the UK needing to “make a financial contribution” to the EU to pay for risk assessments.
And forget any idea of negotiating an agreement “based on the equivalence of legislations”, as some people have suggested, where the EU simply accepts our standards are the same as theirs. This is explicitly ruled out.
Also, a similar approach will apply to the possible linkage of the EU and UK’s carbon pricing schemes, a step that the EU is open to, but one that would again require dynamic legal alignment and financial contributions to cover the costs of linkage.
In Europe such an SPS or CBAM agreement wouldn’t raise any eyebrows at all. Why would it? On SPS, it simply means EU food standards being legally embedded in the laws of a third country. Others, like Norway, Switzerland and New Zealand, have already concluded similar deals so it’s certainly possible.
However, imagine the reaction here. The Tories, Reform UK and the right-wing media will raise a hell of a stink about following EU rules ‘automatically’ with no parliamentary scrutiny and no way of vetoing anything that MPs don’t like.
I am quite sure Starmer will eventually reach an agreement, with the EU once again getting the better end of the deal. This is precisely what was predicted in 2016 well before the referendum. Endless negotiations with Brussels stretching on into the distant future always with the EU27 holding all the cards.
Member states also made clear that the promised ‘reset’ was “only credible if it is based on an early understanding” on fishing. The document adds: “This is needed for the facilitation of discussion on the other aspects under consideration.”
“It is still early in the process,” said one. “But it’s clear that we need the UK to implement what it has already signed — the Windsor framework — before we have more agreements. And we need a deal on fish.”
In short, the UK must make all the big concessions even for negotiations to start!
Taking back control? Don't make me laugh.
