Five steps to rejoining the EU
Brexit has happened, the UK is no longer a member of the EU. For better or worse, we must now bear the consequences of Brexit and begin the work of charting a course back into the EU. This will not be easy but the path is relatively clear. Here are five steps we will need to take.
Accountability, accountability, accountability
Brexiteers are undoubtedly in control of the country now. Having taken command of the Conservative party, they won the 2019 election and now fill all senior posts of government. They are making all the decisions, including Brexit and everything that comes after it. When things go wrong, therefore, it will be important to ensure that there is proper accountability and that the general public is absolutely clear on who to hold responsible.
Now this likely seems obvious, and indeed it is not an original point, but it is worth sounding a note of warning here.
Often when we talk about post-Brexit outcomes, we set out two binary alternatives. Either things are good and everyone is basically happy or things are bad and we return to the EU as public anger is directed at the Brexit project. This is often formulated along the lines of 'in 5/10 years, no one will admit to having voted Remain/Leave'.
However, this seems a bit short-sighted. There is of course a third scenario. Remember that a good majority of our national newspapers backed Brexit and hold absolute conviction in the importance of the Brexit project. This means that we are in a context where holding people to account if Brexit goes wrong will be very difficult because the main institutions who would need to carry out that function are themselves overwhelmingly invested in the outcome of Brexit. For some newspapers, editors and journalists, Brexit going badly would be a severe blow to their credibility. It is therefore actively in their interests to push a positive narrative around Brexit, almost regardless of whether this matches the reality. This is why I am sceptical when people say that now the UK has left the EU, politicians won't be able to blame their failures on Europe. Those accusations weren't true in the first place, yet the media facilitated it for years - why should we believe that anything has changed?
We are looking at a world where things are bad but public anger is not automatically directed at Brexit. The accountability process that is vital for the functioning of any democracy could well be utterly broken.
Because of this, it is of vital importance that we start thinking now about how our government is to be held to account. Potentially the UK will need to start learning the lessons of countries where the media is only partially free (Poland, Hungary) or hyper-polarised (the US).
Get our house in order
Once we have the plan for accountability in place and underway, we will need to quickly move to sort out our own internal problems. Democracy in our country is laughable and is weighed down by archaic ideas and outdated institutions that are ill-fitted to the reality of our modern politics and the views of people in this country. Liberal values are struggling and the threads of the British union are becoming worn.
To solve these problems will require some big constitutional reforms. This will start with a campaign for reform of the voting system. Any initiative to rejoin the EU will have to go hand in hand with introducing some kind of proportional representation when we elect our MPs. Failing to put our weight behind this change would be failing to learn the lesson of the 2019 election when more than 50% of voters opted for second referendum parties. Our pro-European majority will struggle to gain a hold on Parliament without this change. And this is not the only benefit. As proportional voting systems often produce coalition governments, it will force our parties and our politicians to work together more often. Compromise will cease to be a dirty word and will become part of the normal routine of doing politics. This context will also reduce the amount of negative campaigning for two reasons. First, by making elections less binary we also make them less existential - it will be harder to run campaigns based on the idea that the other party will gain total power and that this is an immense danger. Second, parties will know that they may need to work together and so this will incentivise them to be more respectful, even as they continue to disagree. This shift in political culture will help restore some social cohesion.
But this only deals with general elections, what about the equally thorny question of referendums? It is obvious to anyone that the last referendum has caused immense damage to the country. Many in Scotland and Northern Ireland argue, rightly, that their vote and voice against Brexit made no real difference due to the overwhelming size of England. Two of our four nations voted against this major policy decision but this seemingly had no impact on politics in Westminster. No surprise that this has bolstered calls for Scottish independence and Irish reunification. Contrast to the system in the European Union where most important issues require unanimous support from Member States and where even majority voting requires the support of 55% of Member States representing two-thirds of the EU population. Consensus is baked into the EU system in a way that is absent when it comes to the representation of the UK's nations. This could be resolved through some kind of double majority requirement in UK referendums - along the lines of 50%+ of the popular vote and a majority of the nations (3 out of 4).
This could go some way to resolving another issue, the weakening of the British union, but it will not be enough. Too often, the British Parliament acts as a de facto English Parliament. And this is really unavoidable without reform seeing as only a small fraction of UK MPs are non-English. Germany's supposed domination of the EU has nothing on England's real domination of the UK. This inevitably has stored up resentment in other nations, particularly as English national identity and national demands has strengthened. To resolve this we will need to move towards a federal structure for the UK, ensuring that the Parliaments of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (and a new one for England) have actual power and that they cannot simply be overruled at any time by the UK Parliament. Today's odd compromise of devolution, where the other nations have devolved powers only so long as it's convenient for Westminster, is obviously not sustainable.
Finally there will need to be one more piece to complete this puzzle of constitutional reform. Under the UK's current political system, no reform is ever really permanent. Parliament's will is supreme and unrestrained and so any government can simply overturn any previous reform through a simple law passed with a basic majority. To ensure that these reforms are long-lasting and can provide durability and stability to the project of restoring social cohesion within and between the UK's nations, we will need to establish a written (or codified to be technical) constitution. This constitution would establish the basic principles of our democracy, the basic rights of our citizens and would stand above any temporary government, relying on a strong consensus to be changed.
If we accomplish all this, then we will have the structures necessary to create a political culture that allows us to reunite the country and move back into the EU on the basis of a real democratic system, where everyone has a fair voice and where the constitution, not simply today's set of politicians, is the highest authority. The broken system of 'all or nothing' voting and English dominance will almost certainly harm attempts to rejoin the EU and so the two projects are inherently linked.
Build and repair relationships
These internal reforms should help move the UK towards a more conciliatory and positive attitude towards the rest of Europe but nonetheless, we shouldn't take anything for granted. In the lead-up to and during the entire Brexit process, our media and politics have been filled with anti-European invective. We have burned bridges and destroyed trust with many other countries and it is important for British pro-Europeans to recognise that. Though many were sad to see British citizens go, they were less emotional about the departure of the British state.
To make sure that these ties are repaired and that a future EU would want a future UK, there are likely four countries we need to focus on in building good relations.
First, is Germany and France. These are the two biggest countries in the EU and their views on UK accession will carry a lot of weight. Germany should be the easier of the two to convince, just so long as we don't make things worse in the interim and can demonstrate that we are running a moderate form of politics that isn't subject to sudden change. France will be harder as the base level of scepticism towards Britain is higher, nonetheless we cooperate on security and defence and should continue to further that partnership.
Next, Ireland. One of the great victims of the Brexit process has been the relationship between the UK and Ireland. Though the two countries (and the conflict identities in Northern Ireland) were brought so much closer during our shared membership of the European community, the Brexit process has poisoned and reversed much of that hard-earned progress. Attacks on the Irish government were, at one point, almost routine in the UK press. Ireland should always be one of the UK's closest partners and it would be of credit to us if we started to think much more explicitly about this relationship as a process of reconciliation, in the same manner as France and Germany. There are of course existing initiatives that bring the two sides together already but many of these are focused only on Northern Ireland. Time and political will should be invested in bringing together London and Dublin just as much as Dublin and Belfast. We will need to move in small and steady steps but there is a moral obligation to fix this relationship and to put our ties back onto a positive track. To allow the spite and anger to continue and grow would be a betrayal of the hardship and sacrifice of the past.
Finally, it's worth mentioning Spain, for two reasons. The first reason is the link between the UK and Spain through Gibraltar. As long as both were in the EU, Spain was bound not to challenge UK sovereignty over Gibraltar. That guarantee will no longer be there and the EU will undoubtedly back Spain's position in any dispute. It could therefore easily become a point of tension. We will need to work hard to ensure that this does not happen. The second reason is that, with the UK gone, Spain will move up as one of the biggest and most powerful countries in Europe. With a modicum of political stability, Spain could take a leading role and could well hold the influence of France or Germany by the time the UK applies to rejoin. Good relations with Spain will therefore be a safe investment in the future.
Be a willing participant
Today the UK is deeply split and divided on our place in Europe. Forget the majority in Parliament or the rhetoric from newspapers or politicians - the reality on the ground is still one of deep division and distrust. Even if today we could assemble a majority of a bit over 50% to join the EU (and I believe we could), this would fall short of what we need to aim for going forwards.
To achieve this, we will need to go back to basics and win the argument on European integration. For a long time, UK leaders sought to build popular support for EU membership on the idea that we weren't really taking part, that we could secure more opt-outs and more exemptions - essentially that integration was bad but it was okay because we weren't really affected by it. In Brexit, that argument produced its only logical conclusion.
Now the time has come to abandon this. To convince enough people to join the EU, we will need to unashamedly make the argument that European integration is good. That doesn't mean we can't be critical in some areas but it does mean the overall attitude has to be positive. It's no longer good enough to say we had an opt-out on elements on justice and home affairs, we will need to advocate in favour of integration in those areas. This process will start within the pro-European movement itself, where many still hold positions that are basically soft euroscepticism, a position that is no longer useful in campaigns on Europe.
Then, to move the argument further into the wider public, we need to speak the language of things people care about. Yes, peace and prosperity are strong arguments for Europe, and we shouldn't stop making them, but many on the other side don't really believe them and place them below sovereignty and national identity. To make progress we will need to tackle these head-on, to demonstrate how the EU boosts our sovereignty, how European laws can lead to better outcomes than only national ones and how the EU is not a fight between European and national identity but a marriage between the two (and as a side note, any serious campaign should heavily test these messages - focus groups aren't cool but they exist for a reason).
In addition to this general position, it's worth addressing two big points that come up again and again: joining the euro and joining Schengen. Too often, I still see people trying to argue that because not all EU countries are part of these two entities, we could still secure opt-outs if we tried to join. This is not going to happen and any movement that is still thinking this way will go nowhere. We will need to commit to joining the euro, in writing. It's true that we could attach further domestic conditions like a referendum but the political commitment is unavoidable. If you can't imagine saying that joining the euro would be a good thing then at least refrain from trying to make out like we could avoid that commitment. If we are to rejoin, we need to demonstrate that we are committing in full to the European project as it exists today, that is the bottom line.
The only possible exception to this could be Schengen but even then, it would require particular conditions. Schengen is different from anything else because of the need to keep the border between the Republic of Ireland and the UK the same. Currently, that means that both are outside of Schengen. Therefore, if the Irish government wanted to stay out of Schengen, then we would have a fair case, backed up by an EU member, for having an exemption. But only if the Irish government wanted to take that route. If they preferred a solution where we both joined Schengen together, then that would decide the matter. Put simply, an opt-out from Schengen is possible but it would require specific circumstances to align.
Then be a leader
If we are able to do all the above, then we can come to the European table, committed to Europe as it is, but also with a vision for change and reform. What exactly that project is will depend on the context at the time (I would suggest defence policy, given that it is one of our strengths) but the key point is that we will offer a vision of a stronger and more united Europe, not a rehash of any number of 'reform' projects that amount to nothing more than attempts to dismantle the European Union.
Everything is possible
All this will take a lot of time and commitment. No one will be able to do everything but everyone will be able to contribute. Most people now will be looking for a bit of time out, to recover from the turmoil of the last few years. And that is understandable. But resting should not mean giving up. And when people do return, ready to renew the UK's role in pushing for a united Europe, a role which we held at the start but have neglected since, then it is important that we have a well-structured campaign with a clear strategy for the next 5-10 years to make sure people's efforts and beliefs can be put to good use.
Because then, I really believe that we can look forward to a European tomorrow.
Accountability, accountability, accountability
Brexiteers are undoubtedly in control of the country now. Having taken command of the Conservative party, they won the 2019 election and now fill all senior posts of government. They are making all the decisions, including Brexit and everything that comes after it. When things go wrong, therefore, it will be important to ensure that there is proper accountability and that the general public is absolutely clear on who to hold responsible.
Now this likely seems obvious, and indeed it is not an original point, but it is worth sounding a note of warning here.
Often when we talk about post-Brexit outcomes, we set out two binary alternatives. Either things are good and everyone is basically happy or things are bad and we return to the EU as public anger is directed at the Brexit project. This is often formulated along the lines of 'in 5/10 years, no one will admit to having voted Remain/Leave'.
However, this seems a bit short-sighted. There is of course a third scenario. Remember that a good majority of our national newspapers backed Brexit and hold absolute conviction in the importance of the Brexit project. This means that we are in a context where holding people to account if Brexit goes wrong will be very difficult because the main institutions who would need to carry out that function are themselves overwhelmingly invested in the outcome of Brexit. For some newspapers, editors and journalists, Brexit going badly would be a severe blow to their credibility. It is therefore actively in their interests to push a positive narrative around Brexit, almost regardless of whether this matches the reality. This is why I am sceptical when people say that now the UK has left the EU, politicians won't be able to blame their failures on Europe. Those accusations weren't true in the first place, yet the media facilitated it for years - why should we believe that anything has changed?
We are looking at a world where things are bad but public anger is not automatically directed at Brexit. The accountability process that is vital for the functioning of any democracy could well be utterly broken.
Because of this, it is of vital importance that we start thinking now about how our government is to be held to account. Potentially the UK will need to start learning the lessons of countries where the media is only partially free (Poland, Hungary) or hyper-polarised (the US).
Get our house in order
Once we have the plan for accountability in place and underway, we will need to quickly move to sort out our own internal problems. Democracy in our country is laughable and is weighed down by archaic ideas and outdated institutions that are ill-fitted to the reality of our modern politics and the views of people in this country. Liberal values are struggling and the threads of the British union are becoming worn.
To solve these problems will require some big constitutional reforms. This will start with a campaign for reform of the voting system. Any initiative to rejoin the EU will have to go hand in hand with introducing some kind of proportional representation when we elect our MPs. Failing to put our weight behind this change would be failing to learn the lesson of the 2019 election when more than 50% of voters opted for second referendum parties. Our pro-European majority will struggle to gain a hold on Parliament without this change. And this is not the only benefit. As proportional voting systems often produce coalition governments, it will force our parties and our politicians to work together more often. Compromise will cease to be a dirty word and will become part of the normal routine of doing politics. This context will also reduce the amount of negative campaigning for two reasons. First, by making elections less binary we also make them less existential - it will be harder to run campaigns based on the idea that the other party will gain total power and that this is an immense danger. Second, parties will know that they may need to work together and so this will incentivise them to be more respectful, even as they continue to disagree. This shift in political culture will help restore some social cohesion.
But this only deals with general elections, what about the equally thorny question of referendums? It is obvious to anyone that the last referendum has caused immense damage to the country. Many in Scotland and Northern Ireland argue, rightly, that their vote and voice against Brexit made no real difference due to the overwhelming size of England. Two of our four nations voted against this major policy decision but this seemingly had no impact on politics in Westminster. No surprise that this has bolstered calls for Scottish independence and Irish reunification. Contrast to the system in the European Union where most important issues require unanimous support from Member States and where even majority voting requires the support of 55% of Member States representing two-thirds of the EU population. Consensus is baked into the EU system in a way that is absent when it comes to the representation of the UK's nations. This could be resolved through some kind of double majority requirement in UK referendums - along the lines of 50%+ of the popular vote and a majority of the nations (3 out of 4).
This could go some way to resolving another issue, the weakening of the British union, but it will not be enough. Too often, the British Parliament acts as a de facto English Parliament. And this is really unavoidable without reform seeing as only a small fraction of UK MPs are non-English. Germany's supposed domination of the EU has nothing on England's real domination of the UK. This inevitably has stored up resentment in other nations, particularly as English national identity and national demands has strengthened. To resolve this we will need to move towards a federal structure for the UK, ensuring that the Parliaments of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (and a new one for England) have actual power and that they cannot simply be overruled at any time by the UK Parliament. Today's odd compromise of devolution, where the other nations have devolved powers only so long as it's convenient for Westminster, is obviously not sustainable.
Finally there will need to be one more piece to complete this puzzle of constitutional reform. Under the UK's current political system, no reform is ever really permanent. Parliament's will is supreme and unrestrained and so any government can simply overturn any previous reform through a simple law passed with a basic majority. To ensure that these reforms are long-lasting and can provide durability and stability to the project of restoring social cohesion within and between the UK's nations, we will need to establish a written (or codified to be technical) constitution. This constitution would establish the basic principles of our democracy, the basic rights of our citizens and would stand above any temporary government, relying on a strong consensus to be changed.
If we accomplish all this, then we will have the structures necessary to create a political culture that allows us to reunite the country and move back into the EU on the basis of a real democratic system, where everyone has a fair voice and where the constitution, not simply today's set of politicians, is the highest authority. The broken system of 'all or nothing' voting and English dominance will almost certainly harm attempts to rejoin the EU and so the two projects are inherently linked.
Build and repair relationships
These internal reforms should help move the UK towards a more conciliatory and positive attitude towards the rest of Europe but nonetheless, we shouldn't take anything for granted. In the lead-up to and during the entire Brexit process, our media and politics have been filled with anti-European invective. We have burned bridges and destroyed trust with many other countries and it is important for British pro-Europeans to recognise that. Though many were sad to see British citizens go, they were less emotional about the departure of the British state.
To make sure that these ties are repaired and that a future EU would want a future UK, there are likely four countries we need to focus on in building good relations.
First, is Germany and France. These are the two biggest countries in the EU and their views on UK accession will carry a lot of weight. Germany should be the easier of the two to convince, just so long as we don't make things worse in the interim and can demonstrate that we are running a moderate form of politics that isn't subject to sudden change. France will be harder as the base level of scepticism towards Britain is higher, nonetheless we cooperate on security and defence and should continue to further that partnership.
Next, Ireland. One of the great victims of the Brexit process has been the relationship between the UK and Ireland. Though the two countries (and the conflict identities in Northern Ireland) were brought so much closer during our shared membership of the European community, the Brexit process has poisoned and reversed much of that hard-earned progress. Attacks on the Irish government were, at one point, almost routine in the UK press. Ireland should always be one of the UK's closest partners and it would be of credit to us if we started to think much more explicitly about this relationship as a process of reconciliation, in the same manner as France and Germany. There are of course existing initiatives that bring the two sides together already but many of these are focused only on Northern Ireland. Time and political will should be invested in bringing together London and Dublin just as much as Dublin and Belfast. We will need to move in small and steady steps but there is a moral obligation to fix this relationship and to put our ties back onto a positive track. To allow the spite and anger to continue and grow would be a betrayal of the hardship and sacrifice of the past.
Finally, it's worth mentioning Spain, for two reasons. The first reason is the link between the UK and Spain through Gibraltar. As long as both were in the EU, Spain was bound not to challenge UK sovereignty over Gibraltar. That guarantee will no longer be there and the EU will undoubtedly back Spain's position in any dispute. It could therefore easily become a point of tension. We will need to work hard to ensure that this does not happen. The second reason is that, with the UK gone, Spain will move up as one of the biggest and most powerful countries in Europe. With a modicum of political stability, Spain could take a leading role and could well hold the influence of France or Germany by the time the UK applies to rejoin. Good relations with Spain will therefore be a safe investment in the future.
Be a willing participant
Today the UK is deeply split and divided on our place in Europe. Forget the majority in Parliament or the rhetoric from newspapers or politicians - the reality on the ground is still one of deep division and distrust. Even if today we could assemble a majority of a bit over 50% to join the EU (and I believe we could), this would fall short of what we need to aim for going forwards.
To achieve this, we will need to go back to basics and win the argument on European integration. For a long time, UK leaders sought to build popular support for EU membership on the idea that we weren't really taking part, that we could secure more opt-outs and more exemptions - essentially that integration was bad but it was okay because we weren't really affected by it. In Brexit, that argument produced its only logical conclusion.
Now the time has come to abandon this. To convince enough people to join the EU, we will need to unashamedly make the argument that European integration is good. That doesn't mean we can't be critical in some areas but it does mean the overall attitude has to be positive. It's no longer good enough to say we had an opt-out on elements on justice and home affairs, we will need to advocate in favour of integration in those areas. This process will start within the pro-European movement itself, where many still hold positions that are basically soft euroscepticism, a position that is no longer useful in campaigns on Europe.
Then, to move the argument further into the wider public, we need to speak the language of things people care about. Yes, peace and prosperity are strong arguments for Europe, and we shouldn't stop making them, but many on the other side don't really believe them and place them below sovereignty and national identity. To make progress we will need to tackle these head-on, to demonstrate how the EU boosts our sovereignty, how European laws can lead to better outcomes than only national ones and how the EU is not a fight between European and national identity but a marriage between the two (and as a side note, any serious campaign should heavily test these messages - focus groups aren't cool but they exist for a reason).
In addition to this general position, it's worth addressing two big points that come up again and again: joining the euro and joining Schengen. Too often, I still see people trying to argue that because not all EU countries are part of these two entities, we could still secure opt-outs if we tried to join. This is not going to happen and any movement that is still thinking this way will go nowhere. We will need to commit to joining the euro, in writing. It's true that we could attach further domestic conditions like a referendum but the political commitment is unavoidable. If you can't imagine saying that joining the euro would be a good thing then at least refrain from trying to make out like we could avoid that commitment. If we are to rejoin, we need to demonstrate that we are committing in full to the European project as it exists today, that is the bottom line.
The only possible exception to this could be Schengen but even then, it would require particular conditions. Schengen is different from anything else because of the need to keep the border between the Republic of Ireland and the UK the same. Currently, that means that both are outside of Schengen. Therefore, if the Irish government wanted to stay out of Schengen, then we would have a fair case, backed up by an EU member, for having an exemption. But only if the Irish government wanted to take that route. If they preferred a solution where we both joined Schengen together, then that would decide the matter. Put simply, an opt-out from Schengen is possible but it would require specific circumstances to align.
Then be a leader
If we are able to do all the above, then we can come to the European table, committed to Europe as it is, but also with a vision for change and reform. What exactly that project is will depend on the context at the time (I would suggest defence policy, given that it is one of our strengths) but the key point is that we will offer a vision of a stronger and more united Europe, not a rehash of any number of 'reform' projects that amount to nothing more than attempts to dismantle the European Union.
Everything is possible
All this will take a lot of time and commitment. No one will be able to do everything but everyone will be able to contribute. Most people now will be looking for a bit of time out, to recover from the turmoil of the last few years. And that is understandable. But resting should not mean giving up. And when people do return, ready to renew the UK's role in pushing for a united Europe, a role which we held at the start but have neglected since, then it is important that we have a well-structured campaign with a clear strategy for the next 5-10 years to make sure people's efforts and beliefs can be put to good use.
Because then, I really believe that we can look forward to a European tomorrow.
Comments
Post a Comment