A modest proposal: If a majority of 51,89% for and 48,11% against was enough to push through with Brexit, maybe 55% vs. 30% should also be a clear votum to start talking about a new EU membership.
The problem isn’t just re-joining the eu. New contracts would be formed that would be far less advantageous for Britain than they previously had. Which would start this whole circus again :(
I honestly think that's very wrong and one of the last brexiteer arguments that still seems to be believed by reasonable people.
Under the old terms, the UK was one of the largest net contributors to the EU. And also one of the countries absorbing the most immigrants. In fact, the exemptions they got were all quite reasonable.
Without the exemptions, the UK would have been an even bigger net contributor and would have had even more immigrants.
Just from pure self-interest, the EU would be foolish to demand more than the old terms. In fact, with smart negotiating, I am sure the UK could get even more exemptions than they used to have.
And we, the EU, know this. The war in Ukraine is expensive af. The UK is already helping above and beyond what we could expect from them.
The EU economy isn't doing all too great either.
The mutual benefits of the UK rejoining will be billions if not trillions of extra economic output on both sides. It would be billions extra budget for the EU.
Why would we drive a hard bargain to squeeze out the Brits?
Friendly terms that make the British politicians look good and that make the UK public feel like winners and which provide direct short term economic benefits are the way to do it.
Without the exemptions, the UK would have been an even bigger net contributor and would have had even more immigrants.
When a new country joins the union there's always a grace period where countries can say "freedom of movement doesn't apply to them, yet". This is to avoid migration waves while still kinda poor countries catch up in terms of living standards which then reduces migration rates naturally.
The UK never made use of that. Westminster never used the mechanisms the EU gave them to control the flow of immigration. So, kindly, fuck off with your bollocks. This is precisely the kind of thing why the rest of the EU is apprehensive of the UK rejoining. The rest of Europe doesn't like to play scapegoat for Etonians.
In my small village of the Netherlands there are graves of RAF pilots. And in NATO, we are still allies.
My wife made scones and lemon curd this weekend.
My favourite heat pump geek (urban plumbers on youtube) is a Polish guy living and working in the UK.
All these attempts by people trying to divide Europeans are pathetic. It's sad that many people fall for it, because we share a culture and a history.
The UK rejoining the EU in some shape or form (perhaps the EEA) is just a matter of time. Same with Ukraine.
And personally, I think we should already start planning on how to form strategic defense and trade alliances with Turkey, Egypt and a post-Putin Russia. That will solidify a peaceful and prosperous 21st century in Europe and West-Asia.
Anything above their old terms would send a very bad signal to any EU members. There are arguments to be made anywhere between "same rules as new states" and "old rules all the way", but more than that means setting the EU up for other states to follow.
...maybe the EU citizens should be asked first IF they want the brits to come back in the first place?
and if they do - under what conditions. Don't forget the fact the Brits really have burned-down the bridges and threw every little bit of bullshit at the EU and several of the coutries, including their leaders. So - if they want to come back, they should think about a way to redeem themselves.
It's not about redemption or something like that. EU membership is a process and open to all european countries. If UK wants to join again, we don't need an apology from the population.
(and, by the way: 2016 was 9 years ago. With a life expectancy of 78 years and a voting age of 18 a bigger part of those who voted for Brexit have already died. No one under 27 was even able to vote. The migrant population also had no vote here)
There is a lot of BS about setting an example and punishing them, but I have not seen anyone who actually knows how the process works say anything remotely like that.
It would also be a massive case of the EU cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. That's just not how the EU rolls.
The normal process of joining has requirements geared towards poor peripheral countries that the UK already meets or exceeds.
The UK can join anytime it wishes and there is even a lot of room to negotiate mutually beneficial terms.
Then again - looking at Hungary for example, it's better to leave someone outside if said somebody has clear tendencies of being a troublemaker.
A good relationship is way better than no relationship. But no relationship is ENORMOUSLY better than a toxic relationship. And the UK track record isn't that great in that regard...
We do, but we need to set an example. You can't have it look like some club you can just enter and exit just like that. You have got to discourage other countries from trying to leave.
Essentially the UK has to come crawling back on their knees and take a bad deal that gets better for them year after year or smth.
If they want to rejoin they should break up and let the individual countries become members. So if England wants to get out again it doesn’t drag Scotland and Northern Ireland with it against their will. Those two countries voted remain.