Terms for rejoining the EU?
Discussion
Sorry guys about starting a new Brexit thread, but I think this subject is different to the one covered in the 'worth it' thread.
Assuming that there is going to be a Referendum on rejoining the EU at some point in the future, what would be the acceptable terms for the referendum, and what would be the acceptable terms for rejoining? (yes that's 2 questions)
On the first point - the terms of the Referendum, shouldn't we learn from the very strong criticisms that were directed at the 2016 event? Specifically, shouldn't we have a requirement for some form of super majority?
Also, shouldn't the voters know specifically what the terms of rejoining would be in order to make their choice? By that I mean there should be clarity with regards to UK financial contributions, joining the Euro, vetos, extension of QMV, likely EU taxes to be levied, understand clearly plans for further EU integration and all the other questions that arise? After all, if the criticism of the 2016 poll was that it was subverted by lies and lack of clear information, then it would be wrong to repeat that experience, would it not?
So, in a nutshell:
1. What should be the rules governing the Referendum?
2. What would represent acceptable terms for rejoining?
Assuming that there is going to be a Referendum on rejoining the EU at some point in the future, what would be the acceptable terms for the referendum, and what would be the acceptable terms for rejoining? (yes that's 2 questions)
On the first point - the terms of the Referendum, shouldn't we learn from the very strong criticisms that were directed at the 2016 event? Specifically, shouldn't we have a requirement for some form of super majority?
Also, shouldn't the voters know specifically what the terms of rejoining would be in order to make their choice? By that I mean there should be clarity with regards to UK financial contributions, joining the Euro, vetos, extension of QMV, likely EU taxes to be levied, understand clearly plans for further EU integration and all the other questions that arise? After all, if the criticism of the 2016 poll was that it was subverted by lies and lack of clear information, then it would be wrong to repeat that experience, would it not?
So, in a nutshell:
1. What should be the rules governing the Referendum?
2. What would represent acceptable terms for rejoining?
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 18th July 13:16
If there were another referendum then it would certainly have to be the final step in the process, rather than the first.
So at least there could be no claims that people did or didn't know what they were voting form, or for this time around the ex-remainers to just claim all the country's woes will be solved by rejoining.
So at least there could be no claims that people did or didn't know what they were voting form, or for this time around the ex-remainers to just claim all the country's woes will be solved by rejoining.
No more referendums IMHO.
A party sticks it in their manifesto campaigns, and carries it out of they have sufficient majority.
Referendums just result in the government committed to something regardless of their ability (or desire) to carry it out and regardless of its practicality.
If the 2016 EU referendum doesn't put people off referendums I don't know what would.
A party sticks it in their manifesto campaigns, and carries it out of they have sufficient majority.
Referendums just result in the government committed to something regardless of their ability (or desire) to carry it out and regardless of its practicality.
If the 2016 EU referendum doesn't put people off referendums I don't know what would.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Tuesday 18th July 13:37
Problem with "let the government follow through on their manifesto" is you get the decisions of even less than 50% of the electorate (thanks to FPTP)
Perhaps a better approach would be sufficiently major decisions be made by referenda. Not having a written constitution does make that more difficult though.
On terms for rejoining, the most difficult is likely convincing the other members that readmitting the UK is in their benefit.
M.
Perhaps a better approach would be sufficiently major decisions be made by referenda. Not having a written constitution does make that more difficult though.
On terms for rejoining, the most difficult is likely convincing the other members that readmitting the UK is in their benefit.
M.
No referendum - they don't work in this country. So rejoining would be down to a government with the balls to just do it.
Terms should be full integration - Euro, Shengen, you name it, let's have it. I would have been opposed to this pre-2016 but I now believe that were we to rejoin we do so properly with the aim of becoming a proper European power-player,
Terms should be full integration - Euro, Shengen, you name it, let's have it. I would have been opposed to this pre-2016 but I now believe that were we to rejoin we do so properly with the aim of becoming a proper European power-player,
TTwiggy said:
No referendum - they don't work in this country. So rejoining would be down to a government with the balls to just do it.
Terms should be full integration - Euro, Shengen, you name it, let's have it. I would have been opposed to this pre-2016 but I now believe that were we to rejoin we do so properly with the aim of becoming a proper European power-player,
In what way don't they work - that is only your opinion. Terms should be full integration - Euro, Shengen, you name it, let's have it. I would have been opposed to this pre-2016 but I now believe that were we to rejoin we do so properly with the aim of becoming a proper European power-player,
I personally think we should have a referendum to decide if we have more referendum.
The challenge was set by the Political Parties trying to stay neutral in the Brexit referendum but committing to implementing. This was always a political choice. CMD at least did the decent thing a resigned before he had to implement something he fundamentally disagreed with.
Of course had he said that BEFORE the vote that he would immediately resign and we'd have to have a new set of elections then people would at least have known.
TTwiggy said:
No referendum - they don't work in this country. So rejoining would be down to a government with the balls to just do it.
Terms should be full integration - Euro, Shengen, you name it, let's have it. I would have been opposed to this pre-2016 but I now believe that were we to rejoin we do so properly with the aim of becoming a proper European power-player,
In the event of the EU even allowing the U.K. to rejoin it is almost unthinkable that the EU will not demand full implementation of all and more of what you are saying. Terms should be full integration - Euro, Shengen, you name it, let's have it. I would have been opposed to this pre-2016 but I now believe that were we to rejoin we do so properly with the aim of becoming a proper European power-player,
We must learn the mistakes of the first one, namely a vague question which was the start of a nightmare couple of years for everyone. Someone above said it, but you do the negotiation first, THEN you ask the public to vote on it. That's the only decent way to hold a referendum.
As for terms, we'd want to go back to as we were, top table, veto power etc. EU will expect freedom of movement for freedom of trade, we've learnt that it's easy to stop allowing EU citizens moving here for work (and vice versa) and, on balance that has been bad for the UK. Stopping non-EU citizen arriving here via ports or not, is much harder and if that's a 'bad thing' then leaving the EU doesn't help.
Joining the Euro? I don't know, last time around most of the argument, amongst the public at least seemed to involve nostalgia, economists had other concerns.
Frankly though, I’m not even sure it’s a good thing. Polls would suggest we’d vote to join the EU, but the margin would probally be little wider than it was in 2016. Do we just want to start another decade of arguments over it? It’s become too binary and too entrenched. If we rejoin in say, 2025, will we be voting to leave again in 2030? Do we want another 5, 10, 15 years of going back and forth?
For me, the UK is better off joining the single market, free trade for freedom of movement. Economically it’s a worse position than we were in, because despite Leavers crying about being governed by the EU, the truth was we could veto anything we wanted to, and that would no longer be the case, but it would put a decent dent in inflation, remove red tape and generally make life a little easier for us all. Labour has hinted at it in it’s manifesto, and I think it’s the right move. Let Leave keep it’s Blue Passports non-membership of the EU, whilst keeping trade going.
As for terms, we'd want to go back to as we were, top table, veto power etc. EU will expect freedom of movement for freedom of trade, we've learnt that it's easy to stop allowing EU citizens moving here for work (and vice versa) and, on balance that has been bad for the UK. Stopping non-EU citizen arriving here via ports or not, is much harder and if that's a 'bad thing' then leaving the EU doesn't help.
Joining the Euro? I don't know, last time around most of the argument, amongst the public at least seemed to involve nostalgia, economists had other concerns.
Frankly though, I’m not even sure it’s a good thing. Polls would suggest we’d vote to join the EU, but the margin would probally be little wider than it was in 2016. Do we just want to start another decade of arguments over it? It’s become too binary and too entrenched. If we rejoin in say, 2025, will we be voting to leave again in 2030? Do we want another 5, 10, 15 years of going back and forth?
For me, the UK is better off joining the single market, free trade for freedom of movement. Economically it’s a worse position than we were in, because despite Leavers crying about being governed by the EU, the truth was we could veto anything we wanted to, and that would no longer be the case, but it would put a decent dent in inflation, remove red tape and generally make life a little easier for us all. Labour has hinted at it in it’s manifesto, and I think it’s the right move. Let Leave keep it’s Blue Passports non-membership of the EU, whilst keeping trade going.
DaveTheRave87 said:
The EU would refuse to state them until an official application had been made.....
That's why the application needs to be done first, as the basis of someone's election manifesto, with the referendum at the end once the rejoin terms have been agreed.My own view is that we'll become part of the European Economic Area as per Norway and Iceland as the next step. That would give politicians some plausible deniability that we've 'rejoined'.
It will require a generation to determine whether rejoining is feasible or not, if enough people decide that we are being left behind the EU by then. By that time a lot of older Brexiteers will be dead - those in the rightmost three columns of this chart.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-...
As I understand it, we would have to ditch the pound to rejoin, but there is always scope for negotiation. If Brussels wanted us and our money back enough then I'm sure that could be worked around - it's not as if it didn't work before.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-...
As I understand it, we would have to ditch the pound to rejoin, but there is always scope for negotiation. If Brussels wanted us and our money back enough then I'm sure that could be worked around - it's not as if it didn't work before.
BikeBikeBIke said:
If the 2016 EU referendum doesn't put people off referendums I don't know what would.
[/footnote]
I've not checked the precise statistics, but age was a massive factor in the EU referendum.[/footnote]
Younger people voted mostly to remain.
That versus a massive number of Brexiteers who were of the older generations, Boomers in particular, and who are now popping their cloggs, who voted basically to leave a legacy they'd never fully see to the future, and were never going to live long enough to see the ramifications of their vote on generations younger than them or yet to come into existence.
There ought to be a maximum age limit based on this experience.
Personally, I would like to see a clear vision of what we'd be joining.
What is the end point of 'Ever Closer Union'?
Also I'd want to know that the whiners in Gib were going to be firmly in a VAT union along with everyone else.
I'd be quite happy to join the euro.
Anyone who wants to keep the pound is no europhile.
What is the end point of 'Ever Closer Union'?
Also I'd want to know that the whiners in Gib were going to be firmly in a VAT union along with everyone else.
I'd be quite happy to join the euro.
Anyone who wants to keep the pound is no europhile.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff