Joining the euro is a requirement of all new members. However in practice the member doesn’t have to join if they never meet the criteria. This kind of subtle compromise will never be accepted in Britain and there will be much shrieking. Additionally using the euro has many benefits and would not be a bad thing, contrary to what many pro EU British ppl seem to think and say!
It's complicated - the accession treaties (and Maastricht) require you to join the Eurozone when you meet the eligibility criteria, and that is mandatory.
The trick, that would be a hard sell to the British public, is that while you might agree that you will definitely join the Euro, to meet the eligibility criteria, you must be a member of ERM-II for 2 years, but ERM-II membership is entirely political - you can, as Sweden does, maintain your currency within the ERM-II bands that would apply, but not actually join ERM-II itself, and thus not meet the criteria.
That, however, would be a hard sell to the British public - there's one chunk who would get upset that we agreed to join the Euro, but aren't progressing, and another who would get upset that we're being "underhand and deceitful" by agreeing to join, but never taking the final step needed to converge.
There is certainly a need for open communication around this, especially clarifying any work the UK would need to undertake to make this actually happen.
As embarrassing as it is, there is precedence of this being hard even when attempted. The UK did not drop out of the ERM because the government got bored the first time around.
Somehow suggesting that this would somehow happen all by itself, whether "mandated/insisted" or by accident is, in my opinion, not helpful.
Ideally there is research why people prefer to pay banks for exchange services when you could keep the money yourself.
It can't be all just the love of the monarch's face :)
The thing that's going to make it a hard sell is that replacing your currency with the Euro is mandatory - all EU members bar Denmark (who have negotiated an opt-out) must replace their currency with the Euro, but that there is no set timescale for doing it - you can do the Swedish thing and simply not meet criteria forever.
That means that both the "we will be forced to accept the Euro whether we like it or not" (because it's mandated as soon as we converge) and the "we can keep the pound as long as we want" (because we can prevent convergence forever) sides are both honest.
Maybe the EU would allow us to restore our opt-out of the Euro on the basis that we're never intending to converge, but I personally think that the EU is unlikely to offer us that, because it will want us to show that we are committed to being a good EU member, not an intransigent state on the edge.
And because the UK tends to forget Northern Ireland, and otherwise does not have cross-border communities, we rarely think about exchange services - it's deeply unusual for any of us to pay banks for exchange services other than for going on holiday, and the idea of paying for exchange services when going on holiday is normalised.
Further, joining the Euro doesn't completely eliminate paying banks for exchange services - we go on holiday to places all over the world, not just Eurozone countries. We'd still be paying for exchange services for the Middle East (including people on Hajj), the USA, Morocco, and other holiday destinations we go to.
I don't think the claim "whether we like it or not" is honest at all.
The very fact that is requires explicit steps like joining the ERM, let alone actually achieving convergence, makes it clear that it can't happen without explicit consent.
I agree that a new opt-out is unlikely as even the request for that would be seen as an indicator that the UK is not serious about membership.
Denmark is essentially a non-voting member of the Eurozone by having a virtually fixed exchange rate (as they had for many decades with Germany).
Sweden is actually the only exception, the other non Euro members are simply not there yet.
The UK is much more in the situation of the latter than in Sweden's.
However, I can see that people might not realize that they are paying for exchange "services" if they pay everything in Pounds as they are paying the higher prices without seeing the fees paid by the intermediate and passed on to them.
In what way is it dishonest to say that by joining without an opt-out, the EU has mandated that the UK joins the Euro, and that Parliament has no way to stop a future UK government from converging on ministerial say-so (not Parliament's law-making) and joining the Euro?
If we didn't agree to it as part of accession, then a future UK government could be required to enact national legislation to converge. But having agreed to it, and had Parliament stamp the legislation required to make us part of the EU again, there's no process for Parliament to declare that a minister who acted to enact Parliament's wishes as expressed in the joining legislation had acted unlawfully, and therefore a later Parliament might not have the chance to prevent us joining the Euro.
The Eu is simply the collective choice of all member governments and meps, the commission can only mandate what the member states and meps permit and allow…
Excellent piece Ian. As a Remain voter myself, a person who marched in London for a second referendum in 2019 & a current member of the European Movement I think Rejoin in Labour’s next Manifesto (with the promise of a referendum once the terms were known) makes perfect sense and is our best chance to achieve that.
My main concern is that we would find the EU resistant whilst there remains a chance of a Farage or Tory eurosceptic Premiership. I fear that we under estimate the extent to which the EU does not want the melodrama of 2016-21 all over again. Farage and the Tories would have to be electorally buried vs Labours pro Rejoin Manifesto to go any way towards achieving that I think.
Finally, I also fear Starmer is too cautious to do this but hey I don’t want to piss on your parade, especially as I’m totally with you on it but maybe I am a little scarred from the Brexit battles of that era. 🥹
The EU lives, understandably, with a good amount of distrust versus the UK. That’s something I talked about a lot in my nation of birth during the past decade.
Sadly, we may have to suffer a disastrous Reform government to put the logic of rejoining comfortably beyond the supermajority that the EU might reasonably require from a future referendum. It would probably require a pro-trade-focused Tory party on board as well.
The EU, the organisation, does not really require any specific form of national decision or thresholds.
The treaties say roughly that the candidate must have come to the democratic conclusion to join, whatever that means in that country.
Doesn't need to be a referendum, although this is common among members, doesn't need to reach a certain threshold.
However, given that the UK left on a referendum, and a close on, individual members might withhold their agreement if they don't believe a large enough part of the UK electorate supports membership
The question, the really important question is not about the UK's decision to form this government or that government, the real question is how will the rest of the EU respond.
You must remember, that the UK might decide that they/we would like to rejoin, but that does not make it so, it depends on all the other EU countries to come to the decision whether to accept our application.
They read our newspapers, they listen to our politicians, they know what's going on. Alan Stanley was absolutely right in his comment.
1. The existing approach may appear popular on the surface, but it’s going to collide with reality of not achieving very much economically, inevitably forging stronger links for some sectors and not others (at which point, the latter will rightly ask why not them too), and miring the UK and EU in a huge number of time-sucking negotiations.
2. Free movement (of people) as a brand is toxic, but anything we would like needs the UK to get over that. This requires Labour to stop blurring the lines between reciprocal free movement, limited education-based movement, visa-based work opportunities and more typical immigration, and asylum. It’s notable that when the benefits of freedom of movement are polled, they do well. And when Brits are asked if they should be reciprocal, almost everyone goes along for the ride.
3. The lack of popularity for the customs union and single market options in part likely comes down to people not really knowing and understanding what they are. I remain convinced a sizeable number of MPs still aren’t very clear on this either. The/a CU and the SM were often used interchangeably during the Article 50 era, and in some cases they still are. It’s pretty obvious that May didn’t understand what either of these things was ultimately for.
4. The single market should not be considered a panacea, even though I often see people considering it as such. Without doubt, it’s the one single ‘thing’ the UK could join to see a massive improvement to the country in terms of everything from economics to culture. But it isn’t frictionless trade. It merely reduces the friction – albeit fairly substantially. Without the/a customs union, there are still barriers, as anyone from Iceland or Norway will happily point out.
5. I abhor the term rejoin. It suggests we can just kind of slink back. It also suggests were can return to the deal that we had before, which will be impossible. I’d also argue that if the UK isn’t ready to be a normal EU member – regardless of what might be possible to negotiate – then we are not ready and shouldn’t even try. The EU doesn’t need us making demands for special consideration. If the pound remains the biggest blocker, I’m sure there’s a fudge that can be done, but the UK would absolutely have to honour the existing ascension process, rather than pointing to the past and demanding the deal it so casually tossed away.
6. The UK government and pro-EU opposition parties need to be constantly making the positive case for return in a global sense. This can’t just be for the economy. It can’t even just be for the young. We have to get across that, even if you don’t like the EU per se, joining it would improve your life. You would have more opportunities. Your rights would be better underpinned. And so on. It can’t just be that, hey, the UK would be a bit richer.
7. The UK needs to remember throughout that none of this is in our gift. Far, far too often the lens is always about what we want. And while I don’t doubt that the EU would like to see the UK return to the union, that would come with the most colossal of caveats, not least an expectation of permanence, cooperation, understanding and education.
I still think it’s wishful thinking that the needle will be moved sufficiently. It wouldn’t surprise me if the UK remains mired in the red lines Labour has set. But at least Trump has focused minds as to where the UK’s best interests ultimately lie: with our friends and allies on our own continent, not pining for a special relationship that never was across an ocean. (Although if we and the EU can become closer pals with Canada, that would seem like a pretty good future too!)
"not least an expectation of permanence, cooperation, understanding and education."
I think these are all vitally necessary regardless of the chosen approach.
There is a massive hole in the public's knowledge about what the EU is and how it works. So massive that significant sections of the civil service and even MPs have little or no idea.
The traditionally confrontational approach to politics used internally does also not translated well, if at all, to the necessity of collaborative decision making on the EU level.
Permanence is probably the "easiest" requirement since it simply cannot be measured reliably while improvements in the others can.
Yet another discussion of the pros and cons of the UK rejoining the EU that couches the entire discussion in terms of what the UK wants and completely ignores the fact that there are 27 countries, each with a veto, that will have their own opinions about whether they even want us back in the first place, and if so, on what terms.
No doubt. I just think we need to get it out of our heads that we will be welcomed back in like the prodigal son. If anything, I would expect us to be subject to the same governance screening process as any candidate accession state, say Albania, and with all the democratic deficits that we somehow got away with because we were already in (unelected second chamber, inequitable voting system, secretive government structures, corrupt financial services sector, not to mention seriously shaky government finances if we’re supposed to join the euro), there’s no guarantee to my mind that we’d necessarily pass.
There’s also the small fact that Reform is very well placed to win the next election…
FWIW, as someone in favour of the UK joining the EU, I see us as needing to join Schengen, and to at least reach the Swedish compromise on the Euro (if not adopt it), and to reform our national electoral system, as table stakes for getting the EU to take us seriously.
Schengen and the Euro are obvious; on the governance front, unless we adopt the recommendations of Jenkins' Independent Commission on the Voting System from September 1998, or re-run the Commission with a requirement that we end up with a suitably democratic system by EU standards and adopt the resulting recommendations, we're stuck.
Many people are primarily concerned about missing opt-outs (whether actually necessary or even desirable) but have not yet realized that there are obstacles in other areas.
The criteria for membership have changed over the decades and older members might not actually be implicitly eligible if the changes did not require them to adapt accordingly.
However, such reforms sound very desirable by themselves.
Things like the FPTP voting system have seriously reached a point where they are more a problem than a solution
We can only hope rejoining comes faster than your lunch given those deafening rejoin hunger grumbles. What a tedious process undoing self amputation and regrowing what was a perfectly healthy limb is. I seriously wonder if I will even live to see it happen, being almost 72. The last ten years of my life have been made unbelievably more complicated and awkward by Brexit and new and unexpected dividends continue to reveal themselves even now ten years on. I despise every single person who voted for Brexit. There was never any realistic benefit on offer, only lies and false promises. A pox on everyone who orchestrated it and everyone who failed to prevent it.
OK... let's get the Brexit thing out the way. Shit idea. Disastrously implemented.
And - much as I don't want to help you "Labour lot" - Brexit has blind-sided you. You've completely taken your eye off the ball. The ball that The Greens have picked up and rushing past Labour with! I shouldn't need to say this - it's blindingly obvious - but that ball is...
INEQUALITY
You say: "Economic suffocation is killing us. The pain is making people more likely to vote Reform, whose entire programme is based on pitching voters against one another."
But you don't acknowledge that the problem is... fucking billionaires. The wealthiest 1% are taking more and more of the pie. And if you won't even acknowledge the problem, you're not going to fix it. But of course, you can't. Because Labour is funded by the rich.
Yes, it's easy to say "Tax the rich", and not so easy to do. But, there is no bigger, underlying, cause of division in the "capitalist west" than inequality. Reversing Brexit is just fannying around at the edges, compared to implementing a fair tax system.
P.S. Looking at the other comments on this post, it's clear Ian has managed to blind-side everyone from our real societal problem. All good for the Greens. :-)
Couldn’t agree more. If during a cost of living crisis and mass voter disgust/apathy, Ian thinks people are going mobilise behind the vagaries of Schengen I don’t know what to tell him. I live in Hampstead and even here people have moved on from this ffs
The real problem is caused by the slackers who begrudge anyone more successful than themselves, while cheerfully admitting they would never- never!- put the amount of work in required to be successful..
Much easier to leach off '“the rich” (re. anyone who actually tries).
Not wishing to tar all mega-rich with the same brush, I'll concede... yes, some are smart, hard-working people. But most of them, didn't get their wealth because they worked hard - or are particularly smart. Inheritance; luck; playing the system; bending the rules; exploitation, all played a part.
And what keeps them rich, is buying the system - which is why they put so much money into politics. They also ensure we don't see that the system has been rigged - by diverting our attention to "slackers" and migrants. And selling us BS like "trickle down economics".
Inequality has been, steadily increasing over the last five decades. With the rich getting richer and the rest of us getting poorer. How do you explain that? It's not because people are not hard working. It's down to a rigged system.
Working hard will not make you a billionaire. If you want to get rich and stay rich, you need to step over some lines and buy some politicians.
There's only one party now representing the people. The rest are in the pockets of the rich.
What numbers are you looking at? You need to stop listening to Nige - he's a lying divisive conman - and look at the actual facts.
1974 - unemployment rate was at: 3.7%
1984 - it rose to a peak of: 12%
It's been trending downwards since then.
2024 - five decades later, it was: 4.11%
There is no "refusal to join the economy". You are buying the BS being dished out by the rich. Because... they don't want you to see what's really happened:
I also know that I could give you the employment rate for the last five decades, (1974: 73%; 1984: 66%; 2024: 75%), and it would make no difference. I could give you any number of facts; point you at reliable sources; explain how the "virtual oligarchy" we live in, is stacked against the majority. None of that is going to help.
As Mark Twain said: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." So, I give up!
As a Dutch national with half my lifetime spent in England, I marvel at the way Brexiteers live a life of assuming they have a better understanding of the world at large than do continentals. Just look at the rubbish alongside and the potholes in the roads. I’m glad I worked on the railways here in the days of the EU membership. The improvements at the time needed a lot of funding and Britain had that, as proved by the massive changes for the good. At present it is the armed forces and guess what? The money isn’t really there any more and the armed forces, as I read this morning, are hardly a hazy shadow of what they once were. The nation is missing out on a share of the funds the EU is going to spend to try and construct a credible set of armed forces to make Putin think twice before trying to start a war. Joining the EU gets a nation close to where the actions are planned and decisions are made. And oh yeah; dump FPTP before starting re-entry talks in Brussels. Be serious about what you want and tell the Brits what it is going to look like. And have a good look at the mother of customs unions and single markets across the Atlantic. Politically mired in deep mud but no one will do anything similar to Brexit. That was a silly thing to do; the only way is back into our local Union across the North Sea!
European countries are very rich and have enormous budgets, if that’s what you mean? Or are you referring to the fact that every country on earth always argues about what to spend money on
Many people in britain claimed the EU was doomed and on the verge of collapse, that European countries were very poor and wanted britain's riches, in 2016.
In fact Britain is relatively poor compared to much of Europe and particularly supposedly comparable northern and western european countries, if you remove London and the south east, Britain is quite a lot poorer than Poland for example.
National debt is often use a way of claiming that a country is failing or poor, but it doesnt really make sense and is a bit of a buzzword/trope, the USA has enormous amounts of debt "swimming in it" you might say, but the USA is very rich.
Likewise Europe is very wealthy, in some ways much wealthier than the US, as the standard of living for all is higher, much less violence, much better social safety net (the two are linked of course), better housing (30 million americans live in trailers), life expectancy, literacy, list is endless.
You can also find lots of british people in the 2000s and even later throught the 2010s, pronouncing the Euro as dead or definitely doomed, then surprise surprise, the world's second reserve currency is here, still with lots of "doomed" predictions from certain british ppl tho!
Lived in NL until 1989 and visited many times since, conversing with locals and reading/viewing their news. If Russia can find the funds to wage war the Eu certainly is able to as well to defend itself. Additionally, Ukraine is available to give advice on how to tackle Putin’s hordes most efficiently. Say about Greece what you think happened, fact is that it was a corrupt nation at the time and was informed about that in an appropriate way which wasn’t a pleasant experience. It ran its course and Greece became a nation that moves forward on its own steam, without Germany, the UK and several other nations handing it its pocket money.
Hmm. Greece received almost €$7 billion in RRF funds from the EU in 2025, representing 8% of its budget. In addition it received €2 billion from the EU in MIF payments in 2025. Looks like its steam isn't as powerful as one might think.
During a visit to Greece a few things struck me as odd. The amount of half-built houses; OK, that is something we occasionally have here in our side of Europe as well. But half constructed marinas, hotels, things that enable people to earn their income, or a type of ferry boat that is very suitable for precisely the Mediterranean waters that you won’t see anywhere else there: what is the matter? Apart from olives and yoghurt you don’t see much of Greece except food products at Lidl and Aldi. How does Greece keep its people fed?
They have a large shipping industry, tourism industry, a 300 billion dollar economy which grew 2.5% in Q4 2025? The greek merchant shipping navy is the largest in the world and Greek companies manage over 20% of all global shipping.
Even more now that the new border controls are in place marooning thousands of UK passengers. Just how much more brexit misery has to be suffered before a majority of leave voters admit their culpability and naivety in trusting Johnson,Farage,Gove and the rest? Falling investment always leads to falling living standards as good jobs vanish or never get seeded.More existential is the renewed threat to national security from both Putin and America leaving us adrift in a sea of chaos and only a flag to wrap up and keep warm in.
I’m all for rejoining, but the elephant in the room that has to be dealt with and explained to the public is that, beyond a toe in the water, we would eventually have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I can live with this - for three principle reasons: (1) Member states have wide discretion on the many parts of their national laws that aren’t affected by EU legislation; (2) Track record. ECJ judgments have improved the lives and legal positions of British citizens; and (3) It’s a question of “cakeism”. We can’t have the benefits of membership and not have a level playing field.
Ian's best posting by far with the grey areas of British matching our spring weather! Only a new Labour leader will be charged up to reopen negotiations on a properly constructed relationship with its EU partners who are very keen to reopen a new collaborative chapter with its neighbour,rowdy oafish and often disruptive behaviour notwithstanding! Exploiting the faults in platectonic shifts is what successful politics is all about and that takes a real leader to grasp the opportunity which is presented by current US 'quagmire' or sump politics.Mandelson sh** just won't go away no matter how many advisers or civil servants fall on their swords and very reluctantly subject to local and regional/devolved election results ,I have to back calls for a new PM.
Really good. Agree with every word. IN the future referendum, the case for economic integration via single market/customs union is clear, enabling campaigning on the economic opportunities and growth, as you said.
I think Trump has clearly made the case for us needing to be in the rooms where decisions are made, and pooling resources across everything from energy to defence. Even free movement, might be tricky, but ending it didn't lead to greatly reduced migration and arguably there is less economic disparity between UK and fellow members, which was what led to the large scale, rapid migration that became a point of contention (although think we'd need to make a more positive case for it that this).
Adopting the Euro would probably be a huge hundrance to rejoining if it was a conditon (I personally can no longer care less what currency I don't have enough of anymore).
Referendum in the future for sure, and I will be mucking in, in whatever way I can, when it comes to it.
No idea in what capacity i'd support, I guess just joing a local campaign or something. I don't write about politics anymore but sure there will be some way of getting involved.
As part of the general conversation, I am going to post here a quote which I saw BTL in the Telegraph today "The establishment with the help of May, Bercow and Benn, prevented Brexit."
Yes, this is a genuine quote, someone spent time typing this sentence into a comment box. I am not part of that comment forum, but I'd love to ask this particular person some questions about their opinion, mainly, 'What makes them think that Brexit hasn't happened?' and 'What idea of Brexit did they have which made them think this way?'
There are some extremely noisy people out there, for which any kind of rapprochement is a 'Brexit betrayal'. They are in the minority, but by God are they noisy!
I completely agree with your thesis but am afraid it won't happen. The people who would have to do it just aren't brave enough.
On the off chance though, I would very much argue that they *shouldn't* have another referendum. Instead make rejoining the flagship platform of the GE manifesto, with the pledge that the new Govt would have the application form ready to go straight after the new PM had 'kissed hands'. Like your argument re the customs union, a separate referendum is just going to slow everything down.
I read the title and nearly squeeled with delight in a board meeting - I will listen/read this tomorrow but if the content matches the title my response is fuck yes and bring it on. Are we getting the band back together then? Remaniacs reunion or are we going with rejoin-iacs? - either way sign me up. I got my Chartership today so im out celebrating later and this has just compounded my joy. Diolch dude.
I doubt the EU would insist we accept the Euro, and hey, if it replaces the dollar as the reserve currency at some point, we'd be gagging to adopt it.
Thanks for writing this up in such an inspiring and clever way.
Joining the euro is a requirement of all new members. However in practice the member doesn’t have to join if they never meet the criteria. This kind of subtle compromise will never be accepted in Britain and there will be much shrieking. Additionally using the euro has many benefits and would not be a bad thing, contrary to what many pro EU British ppl seem to think and say!
I think this is just a convenient red herring rolled out by those opposed to EU membership.
Becoming part of the Eurozone can not be mandated or "insisted" as the potential new member needs to fulfill certain criteria to be even eligible.
The UK had initially attempted to achieve this, even if just formally, but had failed and to embarrassingly leave the ERM.
The opt-out was merely a smoke screen, a spin to make the defeat look like a win.
Like getting a FIFA opt-out from participating in the world cup when you've just failed qualification
It's complicated - the accession treaties (and Maastricht) require you to join the Eurozone when you meet the eligibility criteria, and that is mandatory.
The trick, that would be a hard sell to the British public, is that while you might agree that you will definitely join the Euro, to meet the eligibility criteria, you must be a member of ERM-II for 2 years, but ERM-II membership is entirely political - you can, as Sweden does, maintain your currency within the ERM-II bands that would apply, but not actually join ERM-II itself, and thus not meet the criteria.
That, however, would be a hard sell to the British public - there's one chunk who would get upset that we agreed to join the Euro, but aren't progressing, and another who would get upset that we're being "underhand and deceitful" by agreeing to join, but never taking the final step needed to converge.
There is certainly a need for open communication around this, especially clarifying any work the UK would need to undertake to make this actually happen.
As embarrassing as it is, there is precedence of this being hard even when attempted. The UK did not drop out of the ERM because the government got bored the first time around.
Somehow suggesting that this would somehow happen all by itself, whether "mandated/insisted" or by accident is, in my opinion, not helpful.
Ideally there is research why people prefer to pay banks for exchange services when you could keep the money yourself.
It can't be all just the love of the monarch's face :)
The thing that's going to make it a hard sell is that replacing your currency with the Euro is mandatory - all EU members bar Denmark (who have negotiated an opt-out) must replace their currency with the Euro, but that there is no set timescale for doing it - you can do the Swedish thing and simply not meet criteria forever.
That means that both the "we will be forced to accept the Euro whether we like it or not" (because it's mandated as soon as we converge) and the "we can keep the pound as long as we want" (because we can prevent convergence forever) sides are both honest.
Maybe the EU would allow us to restore our opt-out of the Euro on the basis that we're never intending to converge, but I personally think that the EU is unlikely to offer us that, because it will want us to show that we are committed to being a good EU member, not an intransigent state on the edge.
And because the UK tends to forget Northern Ireland, and otherwise does not have cross-border communities, we rarely think about exchange services - it's deeply unusual for any of us to pay banks for exchange services other than for going on holiday, and the idea of paying for exchange services when going on holiday is normalised.
Further, joining the Euro doesn't completely eliminate paying banks for exchange services - we go on holiday to places all over the world, not just Eurozone countries. We'd still be paying for exchange services for the Middle East (including people on Hajj), the USA, Morocco, and other holiday destinations we go to.
I don't think the claim "whether we like it or not" is honest at all.
The very fact that is requires explicit steps like joining the ERM, let alone actually achieving convergence, makes it clear that it can't happen without explicit consent.
I agree that a new opt-out is unlikely as even the request for that would be seen as an indicator that the UK is not serious about membership.
Denmark is essentially a non-voting member of the Eurozone by having a virtually fixed exchange rate (as they had for many decades with Germany).
Sweden is actually the only exception, the other non Euro members are simply not there yet.
The UK is much more in the situation of the latter than in Sweden's.
However, I can see that people might not realize that they are paying for exchange "services" if they pay everything in Pounds as they are paying the higher prices without seeing the fees paid by the intermediate and passed on to them.
In what way is it dishonest to say that by joining without an opt-out, the EU has mandated that the UK joins the Euro, and that Parliament has no way to stop a future UK government from converging on ministerial say-so (not Parliament's law-making) and joining the Euro?
If we didn't agree to it as part of accession, then a future UK government could be required to enact national legislation to converge. But having agreed to it, and had Parliament stamp the legislation required to make us part of the EU again, there's no process for Parliament to declare that a minister who acted to enact Parliament's wishes as expressed in the joining legislation had acted unlawfully, and therefore a later Parliament might not have the chance to prevent us joining the Euro.
Definitely feels like the EU will be more willing to be flexible than they were pre-Trump 2.0
The Eu is simply the collective choice of all member governments and meps, the commission can only mandate what the member states and meps permit and allow…
Excellent piece Ian. As a Remain voter myself, a person who marched in London for a second referendum in 2019 & a current member of the European Movement I think Rejoin in Labour’s next Manifesto (with the promise of a referendum once the terms were known) makes perfect sense and is our best chance to achieve that.
My main concern is that we would find the EU resistant whilst there remains a chance of a Farage or Tory eurosceptic Premiership. I fear that we under estimate the extent to which the EU does not want the melodrama of 2016-21 all over again. Farage and the Tories would have to be electorally buried vs Labours pro Rejoin Manifesto to go any way towards achieving that I think.
Finally, I also fear Starmer is too cautious to do this but hey I don’t want to piss on your parade, especially as I’m totally with you on it but maybe I am a little scarred from the Brexit battles of that era. 🥹
The EU lives, understandably, with a good amount of distrust versus the UK. That’s something I talked about a lot in my nation of birth during the past decade.
Well argued, and if Labour is to take “this opportunity” let it be while Trump is still on office
Sadly, we may have to suffer a disastrous Reform government to put the logic of rejoining comfortably beyond the supermajority that the EU might reasonably require from a future referendum. It would probably require a pro-trade-focused Tory party on board as well.
The EU, the organisation, does not really require any specific form of national decision or thresholds.
The treaties say roughly that the candidate must have come to the democratic conclusion to join, whatever that means in that country.
Doesn't need to be a referendum, although this is common among members, doesn't need to reach a certain threshold.
However, given that the UK left on a referendum, and a close on, individual members might withhold their agreement if they don't believe a large enough part of the UK electorate supports membership
Hope not. Agree re need for a more centrist Tory Party but think that may come.
Are we really debating how Britain can join a political body that resents and resists Britons’ decisions on who should form government?
When did the British get this whipped?
No we’re not. We’re discussing whether existing members would want the psycho drama of a UK on the verge of leaving it again. They wouldn’t.
So we’d need Reform beaten (if they are beaten Farage won’t hang around and that party will self implode) and the Tories to turn back to the centre.
So... yes, then.
Too subtle a concept for you clearly. Can’t be arsed to debate with this kinda one dimensional numbskullery. Blocked.
The question, the really important question is not about the UK's decision to form this government or that government, the real question is how will the rest of the EU respond.
You must remember, that the UK might decide that they/we would like to rejoin, but that does not make it so, it depends on all the other EU countries to come to the decision whether to accept our application.
They read our newspapers, they listen to our politicians, they know what's going on. Alan Stanley was absolutely right in his comment.
Some comments:
1. The existing approach may appear popular on the surface, but it’s going to collide with reality of not achieving very much economically, inevitably forging stronger links for some sectors and not others (at which point, the latter will rightly ask why not them too), and miring the UK and EU in a huge number of time-sucking negotiations.
2. Free movement (of people) as a brand is toxic, but anything we would like needs the UK to get over that. This requires Labour to stop blurring the lines between reciprocal free movement, limited education-based movement, visa-based work opportunities and more typical immigration, and asylum. It’s notable that when the benefits of freedom of movement are polled, they do well. And when Brits are asked if they should be reciprocal, almost everyone goes along for the ride.
3. The lack of popularity for the customs union and single market options in part likely comes down to people not really knowing and understanding what they are. I remain convinced a sizeable number of MPs still aren’t very clear on this either. The/a CU and the SM were often used interchangeably during the Article 50 era, and in some cases they still are. It’s pretty obvious that May didn’t understand what either of these things was ultimately for.
4. The single market should not be considered a panacea, even though I often see people considering it as such. Without doubt, it’s the one single ‘thing’ the UK could join to see a massive improvement to the country in terms of everything from economics to culture. But it isn’t frictionless trade. It merely reduces the friction – albeit fairly substantially. Without the/a customs union, there are still barriers, as anyone from Iceland or Norway will happily point out.
5. I abhor the term rejoin. It suggests we can just kind of slink back. It also suggests were can return to the deal that we had before, which will be impossible. I’d also argue that if the UK isn’t ready to be a normal EU member – regardless of what might be possible to negotiate – then we are not ready and shouldn’t even try. The EU doesn’t need us making demands for special consideration. If the pound remains the biggest blocker, I’m sure there’s a fudge that can be done, but the UK would absolutely have to honour the existing ascension process, rather than pointing to the past and demanding the deal it so casually tossed away.
6. The UK government and pro-EU opposition parties need to be constantly making the positive case for return in a global sense. This can’t just be for the economy. It can’t even just be for the young. We have to get across that, even if you don’t like the EU per se, joining it would improve your life. You would have more opportunities. Your rights would be better underpinned. And so on. It can’t just be that, hey, the UK would be a bit richer.
7. The UK needs to remember throughout that none of this is in our gift. Far, far too often the lens is always about what we want. And while I don’t doubt that the EU would like to see the UK return to the union, that would come with the most colossal of caveats, not least an expectation of permanence, cooperation, understanding and education.
I still think it’s wishful thinking that the needle will be moved sufficiently. It wouldn’t surprise me if the UK remains mired in the red lines Labour has set. But at least Trump has focused minds as to where the UK’s best interests ultimately lie: with our friends and allies on our own continent, not pining for a special relationship that never was across an ocean. (Although if we and the EU can become closer pals with Canada, that would seem like a pretty good future too!)
"not least an expectation of permanence, cooperation, understanding and education."
I think these are all vitally necessary regardless of the chosen approach.
There is a massive hole in the public's knowledge about what the EU is and how it works. So massive that significant sections of the civil service and even MPs have little or no idea.
The traditionally confrontational approach to politics used internally does also not translated well, if at all, to the necessity of collaborative decision making on the EU level.
Permanence is probably the "easiest" requirement since it simply cannot be measured reliably while improvements in the others can.
Yet another discussion of the pros and cons of the UK rejoining the EU that couches the entire discussion in terms of what the UK wants and completely ignores the fact that there are 27 countries, each with a veto, that will have their own opinions about whether they even want us back in the first place, and if so, on what terms.
I can assure you the EU are talking about it too.
No doubt. I just think we need to get it out of our heads that we will be welcomed back in like the prodigal son. If anything, I would expect us to be subject to the same governance screening process as any candidate accession state, say Albania, and with all the democratic deficits that we somehow got away with because we were already in (unelected second chamber, inequitable voting system, secretive government structures, corrupt financial services sector, not to mention seriously shaky government finances if we’re supposed to join the euro), there’s no guarantee to my mind that we’d necessarily pass.
There’s also the small fact that Reform is very well placed to win the next election…
FWIW, as someone in favour of the UK joining the EU, I see us as needing to join Schengen, and to at least reach the Swedish compromise on the Euro (if not adopt it), and to reform our national electoral system, as table stakes for getting the EU to take us seriously.
Schengen and the Euro are obvious; on the governance front, unless we adopt the recommendations of Jenkins' Independent Commission on the Voting System from September 1998, or re-run the Commission with a requirement that we end up with a suitably democratic system by EU standards and adopt the resulting recommendations, we're stuck.
This is a very good point!
Many people are primarily concerned about missing opt-outs (whether actually necessary or even desirable) but have not yet realized that there are obstacles in other areas.
The criteria for membership have changed over the decades and older members might not actually be implicitly eligible if the changes did not require them to adapt accordingly.
However, such reforms sound very desirable by themselves.
Things like the FPTP voting system have seriously reached a point where they are more a problem than a solution
Yay!
We can only hope rejoining comes faster than your lunch given those deafening rejoin hunger grumbles. What a tedious process undoing self amputation and regrowing what was a perfectly healthy limb is. I seriously wonder if I will even live to see it happen, being almost 72. The last ten years of my life have been made unbelievably more complicated and awkward by Brexit and new and unexpected dividends continue to reveal themselves even now ten years on. I despise every single person who voted for Brexit. There was never any realistic benefit on offer, only lies and false promises. A pox on everyone who orchestrated it and everyone who failed to prevent it.
OK... let's get the Brexit thing out the way. Shit idea. Disastrously implemented.
And - much as I don't want to help you "Labour lot" - Brexit has blind-sided you. You've completely taken your eye off the ball. The ball that The Greens have picked up and rushing past Labour with! I shouldn't need to say this - it's blindingly obvious - but that ball is...
INEQUALITY
You say: "Economic suffocation is killing us. The pain is making people more likely to vote Reform, whose entire programme is based on pitching voters against one another."
But you don't acknowledge that the problem is... fucking billionaires. The wealthiest 1% are taking more and more of the pie. And if you won't even acknowledge the problem, you're not going to fix it. But of course, you can't. Because Labour is funded by the rich.
Yes, it's easy to say "Tax the rich", and not so easy to do. But, there is no bigger, underlying, cause of division in the "capitalist west" than inequality. Reversing Brexit is just fannying around at the edges, compared to implementing a fair tax system.
So yes...
#VoteGreen
P.S. Looking at the other comments on this post, it's clear Ian has managed to blind-side everyone from our real societal problem. All good for the Greens. :-)
Couldn’t agree more. If during a cost of living crisis and mass voter disgust/apathy, Ian thinks people are going mobilise behind the vagaries of Schengen I don’t know what to tell him. I live in Hampstead and even here people have moved on from this ffs
The real problem is caused by the slackers who begrudge anyone more successful than themselves, while cheerfully admitting they would never- never!- put the amount of work in required to be successful..
Much easier to leach off '“the rich” (re. anyone who actually tries).
Not wishing to tar all mega-rich with the same brush, I'll concede... yes, some are smart, hard-working people. But most of them, didn't get their wealth because they worked hard - or are particularly smart. Inheritance; luck; playing the system; bending the rules; exploitation, all played a part.
And what keeps them rich, is buying the system - which is why they put so much money into politics. They also ensure we don't see that the system has been rigged - by diverting our attention to "slackers" and migrants. And selling us BS like "trickle down economics".
Inequality has been, steadily increasing over the last five decades. With the rich getting richer and the rest of us getting poorer. How do you explain that? It's not because people are not hard working. It's down to a rigged system.
Working hard will not make you a billionaire. If you want to get rich and stay rich, you need to step over some lines and buy some politicians.
There's only one party now representing the people. The rest are in the pockets of the rich.
#VoteGreen
I look at the number of people who refuse to join the economy, and the answer becomes obvious...
What numbers are you looking at? You need to stop listening to Nige - he's a lying divisive conman - and look at the actual facts.
1974 - unemployment rate was at: 3.7%
1984 - it rose to a peak of: 12%
It's been trending downwards since then.
2024 - five decades later, it was: 4.11%
There is no "refusal to join the economy". You are buying the BS being dished out by the rich. Because... they don't want you to see what's really happened:
They have all the money.
😂You do know unemployment rate only counts those looking for work, right?
Right?!
Yep! I do know that.
I also know that I could give you the employment rate for the last five decades, (1974: 73%; 1984: 66%; 2024: 75%), and it would make no difference. I could give you any number of facts; point you at reliable sources; explain how the "virtual oligarchy" we live in, is stacked against the majority. None of that is going to help.
As Mark Twain said: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." So, I give up!
As a Dutch national with half my lifetime spent in England, I marvel at the way Brexiteers live a life of assuming they have a better understanding of the world at large than do continentals. Just look at the rubbish alongside and the potholes in the roads. I’m glad I worked on the railways here in the days of the EU membership. The improvements at the time needed a lot of funding and Britain had that, as proved by the massive changes for the good. At present it is the armed forces and guess what? The money isn’t really there any more and the armed forces, as I read this morning, are hardly a hazy shadow of what they once were. The nation is missing out on a share of the funds the EU is going to spend to try and construct a credible set of armed forces to make Putin think twice before trying to start a war. Joining the EU gets a nation close to where the actions are planned and decisions are made. And oh yeah; dump FPTP before starting re-entry talks in Brussels. Be serious about what you want and tell the Brits what it is going to look like. And have a good look at the mother of customs unions and single markets across the Atlantic. Politically mired in deep mud but no one will do anything similar to Brexit. That was a silly thing to do; the only way is back into our local Union across the North Sea!
Tl;dr: become Greece and you'll get along swimmingly in the EU.🙄
Where are those defense funds coming from? Is there some EU nation/nations swimming in cash at the moment?
European countries are very rich and have enormous budgets, if that’s what you mean? Or are you referring to the fact that every country on earth always argues about what to spend money on
"Very rich" and "swimming in unprecedented debt" rarely occur in concurrence...
Many people in britain claimed the EU was doomed and on the verge of collapse, that European countries were very poor and wanted britain's riches, in 2016.
In fact Britain is relatively poor compared to much of Europe and particularly supposedly comparable northern and western european countries, if you remove London and the south east, Britain is quite a lot poorer than Poland for example.
National debt is often use a way of claiming that a country is failing or poor, but it doesnt really make sense and is a bit of a buzzword/trope, the USA has enormous amounts of debt "swimming in it" you might say, but the USA is very rich.
Likewise Europe is very wealthy, in some ways much wealthier than the US, as the standard of living for all is higher, much less violence, much better social safety net (the two are linked of course), better housing (30 million americans live in trailers), life expectancy, literacy, list is endless.
You can also find lots of british people in the 2000s and even later throught the 2010s, pronouncing the Euro as dead or definitely doomed, then surprise surprise, the world's second reserve currency is here, still with lots of "doomed" predictions from certain british ppl tho!
Lived in NL until 1989 and visited many times since, conversing with locals and reading/viewing their news. If Russia can find the funds to wage war the Eu certainly is able to as well to defend itself. Additionally, Ukraine is available to give advice on how to tackle Putin’s hordes most efficiently. Say about Greece what you think happened, fact is that it was a corrupt nation at the time and was informed about that in an appropriate way which wasn’t a pleasant experience. It ran its course and Greece became a nation that moves forward on its own steam, without Germany, the UK and several other nations handing it its pocket money.
Hmm. Greece received almost €$7 billion in RRF funds from the EU in 2025, representing 8% of its budget. In addition it received €2 billion from the EU in MIF payments in 2025. Looks like its steam isn't as powerful as one might think.
During a visit to Greece a few things struck me as odd. The amount of half-built houses; OK, that is something we occasionally have here in our side of Europe as well. But half constructed marinas, hotels, things that enable people to earn their income, or a type of ferry boat that is very suitable for precisely the Mediterranean waters that you won’t see anywhere else there: what is the matter? Apart from olives and yoghurt you don’t see much of Greece except food products at Lidl and Aldi. How does Greece keep its people fed?
They have a large shipping industry, tourism industry, a 300 billion dollar economy which grew 2.5% in Q4 2025? The greek merchant shipping navy is the largest in the world and Greek companies manage over 20% of all global shipping.
So hope we do rejoin. I've felt like a European in exile since 2016.
Even more now that the new border controls are in place marooning thousands of UK passengers. Just how much more brexit misery has to be suffered before a majority of leave voters admit their culpability and naivety in trusting Johnson,Farage,Gove and the rest? Falling investment always leads to falling living standards as good jobs vanish or never get seeded.More existential is the renewed threat to national security from both Putin and America leaving us adrift in a sea of chaos and only a flag to wrap up and keep warm in.
EU "border controls" will have Britons marooned in Britain by (even more) illegals.
"Border control" denotes acknowledging that one has borders, and is making some -any!- attempt at controlling them.
I’m all for rejoining, but the elephant in the room that has to be dealt with and explained to the public is that, beyond a toe in the water, we would eventually have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I can live with this - for three principle reasons: (1) Member states have wide discretion on the many parts of their national laws that aren’t affected by EU legislation; (2) Track record. ECJ judgments have improved the lives and legal positions of British citizens; and (3) It’s a question of “cakeism”. We can’t have the benefits of membership and not have a level playing field.
Ian's best posting by far with the grey areas of British matching our spring weather! Only a new Labour leader will be charged up to reopen negotiations on a properly constructed relationship with its EU partners who are very keen to reopen a new collaborative chapter with its neighbour,rowdy oafish and often disruptive behaviour notwithstanding! Exploiting the faults in platectonic shifts is what successful politics is all about and that takes a real leader to grasp the opportunity which is presented by current US 'quagmire' or sump politics.Mandelson sh** just won't go away no matter how many advisers or civil servants fall on their swords and very reluctantly subject to local and regional/devolved election results ,I have to back calls for a new PM.
This is the only sensible approach although there will be many who lose their 'shit' over it. What a waste of
time, oxygen, energy, political bandwidth & money the whole BREXIT mess has been proven to be.
Really good. Agree with every word. IN the future referendum, the case for economic integration via single market/customs union is clear, enabling campaigning on the economic opportunities and growth, as you said.
I think Trump has clearly made the case for us needing to be in the rooms where decisions are made, and pooling resources across everything from energy to defence. Even free movement, might be tricky, but ending it didn't lead to greatly reduced migration and arguably there is less economic disparity between UK and fellow members, which was what led to the large scale, rapid migration that became a point of contention (although think we'd need to make a more positive case for it that this).
Adopting the Euro would probably be a huge hundrance to rejoining if it was a conditon (I personally can no longer care less what currency I don't have enough of anymore).
Referendum in the future for sure, and I will be mucking in, in whatever way I can, when it comes to it.
Same Ben (are we getting the band back together - Remaniacs reunion tour?)
No idea in what capacity i'd support, I guess just joing a local campaign or something. I don't write about politics anymore but sure there will be some way of getting involved.
This is a great piece!
As part of the general conversation, I am going to post here a quote which I saw BTL in the Telegraph today "The establishment with the help of May, Bercow and Benn, prevented Brexit."
Yes, this is a genuine quote, someone spent time typing this sentence into a comment box. I am not part of that comment forum, but I'd love to ask this particular person some questions about their opinion, mainly, 'What makes them think that Brexit hasn't happened?' and 'What idea of Brexit did they have which made them think this way?'
There are some extremely noisy people out there, for which any kind of rapprochement is a 'Brexit betrayal'. They are in the minority, but by God are they noisy!
I completely agree with your thesis but am afraid it won't happen. The people who would have to do it just aren't brave enough.
On the off chance though, I would very much argue that they *shouldn't* have another referendum. Instead make rejoining the flagship platform of the GE manifesto, with the pledge that the new Govt would have the application form ready to go straight after the new PM had 'kissed hands'. Like your argument re the customs union, a separate referendum is just going to slow everything down.
I read the title and nearly squeeled with delight in a board meeting - I will listen/read this tomorrow but if the content matches the title my response is fuck yes and bring it on. Are we getting the band back together then? Remaniacs reunion or are we going with rejoin-iacs? - either way sign me up. I got my Chartership today so im out celebrating later and this has just compounded my joy. Diolch dude.
Rejoining is a hope I cling to.