Twice in the last month, Europeans living on the continent have asked me whether the UK will rejoin the European Union. Not in decades, if at all, I replied. This is despite a change in British opinion about the wisdom of Brexit. If voters in 2016 had known what they know now, they would have voted to remain. The result is a leap into the dark. As the ancient philosopher Heraclitus told us, “you cannot bathe in the same river twice”: neither you nor the river will be the same. The same is true today: the decision to reapply cannot reverse the decision to secede: the two territories have changed.
It is clear that British public opinion has changed. According to National Center for Social Research, the average of six new polls showed that 56 percent of respondents favored restoration, although individually it ranged from 60 to 49 percent in favor. A report from the United Kingdom is even more revealing Change in Europe y Public First (of which my daughter is a founding member), which was published in September. According to this report, 22 percent of pro-Leave voters think Brexit has turned out badly or worse, compared to 18 percent who think it is good or very good. Therefore, bregret (the return of the United Kingdom to the European Union) is very widespread.
The fact that Leave Voters feel disappointed is not a surprise, but it also does not bode well for the reputation of our democracy.
Why, given this awakening to a (completely predictable) reality, should the effort not be made to rejoin? There are three determining factors: First, it will create a series of new and damaging uncertainties; secondly, it would destroy British politics; third, the agreement of United Kingdom will be very different from the one he has, mainly because, he is Michel Barnier, former negotiator, to the Financial Times: “The European Union is now not like the one the United Kingdom left … we are starting to learn the lessons of Brexit.”
The uncertainty this creates is obvious. The battle to re-nominate his candidacy will consume a large part of the parliament. It is necessary to hold a new referendum, or two: one to start negotiations and the other to check their conditions. Between the two, there was another negotiation, with unpredictable results. The UK will look angry by doing this so soon. For businesses this is a nightmare.
This can cause deep divisions. People in favor of leaving will see this as a betrayal and those in favor of staying as an opportunity for revenge. Labour, if they were actually in government, would be foolish to undertake such a divisive project. Worse, it will divert attention and energy from addressing other economic and social challenges.
The most important thing is that the result will not be decided in the United Kingdom. the European Union You want to be confident that the new member will be more cooperative and committed than before. Considering the many challenges you face, you cannot accept a large, hostile membership.
It would be reasonable for the European Union to insist that there is no exclusion or exemption clause. The decision to coordinate the response to the invasion of Ukraine is also important. Reintegration must undoubtedly include a commitment to creating a more integrated European Union. That’s still not what a small minority of Britons want.
Currently, the approach to Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition in the United Kingdom, is the only logical one: replace ideological positions with pragmatic steps towards closer and more cooperative relations. Is there anything that can replace it? Yes. If Trump takes the US out of NATO, everything can change, but that is not a solution that a sane person would want.