By Tom Fowdy
In 2016, the United Kingdom voted by a narrow majority to leave the European Union (EU). This vote proved to be a decisive turning point in British domestic dynamics, creating new fault lines and a divisive environment to go with it. It thus goes without saying that there are some people, largely in the Middle Classes and in metropolitan areas, who have never gotten over Brexit, pointing to the fact that a great deal of evidence shows it has not been economically beneficial to the country.
It is thus no surprise that amongst the liberal and left-leaning wings of British politics, that a sentiment to "rejoin" the European Union has persistently lingered. While Keir Starmer undertook a reset of working relations with the bloc, he understood that a full-blown rejoining effort was politically inconvenient, not least because the most ardent supporters of Brexit are situated in northern, working-class areas that are traditional Labour strongholds, such as Sunderland.
Still, this has not stopped the decline of Labour support in those areas and the rise of nationalist sentiment as a reaction to immigration, something Starmer also tried to tackle and failed. Thus, his successor Andy Burnham has taken a different approach. Rather than trying to appeal to everyone, the Liverpudlian is developing a political strategy which aims to consolidate the left and liberal constituencies of the country into a winning coalition, seeking to stop attrition to the Greens as opposed to trying to "Out Reform, Reform" and instead representing himself as a force for positive change to fix the country.
For the time being, this appears to have worked, as Labour has risen in the polls as part of the "Burnham Bounce" with the new Prime Minister having a more likeable and down-to-earth persona, while also implementing progressive policies designed to win back the left, including a harder approach on Israel, social care Reform, and as we have learnt a much more open approach to Europe, including the "possibility of rejoining."
This shows the Prime Minister is willing to undertake "trade-offs" that Keir Starmer was not. Due to the highly divisive nature of Britain's political environment, if you wish to appeal to the liberal-left wing, you must be seen as pro-Europe and pro-immigration, whereas if you wish to appeal to the right, you must be anti-immigration and anti-EU. The two are not compatible, as Starmer discovered. Burnham appears, at least in terms of rhetoric, to be casting his lot as part of building his coalition. However, is it really that easy for Britain to simply "rejoin" Europe?
While a lot of data points towards Brexit being seen as unbeneficial, and thus a sentiment styled as "bregret," this does not automatically follow through that "rejoining" is therefore more beneficial, or that an immediate reversal of the events of 2016 is not possible. This is because the geopolitical realities of Brexit are far more complex than the domestic ones. When Britain left the European Union formally in 2020, it constituted a dramatic realignment of power within the bloc. As a member, the United Kingdom was a maverick of sorts inside Europe. It acted as a stumbling bloc to increased integration, carved out exceptions for itself, and subsequently allowed smaller states to game the system by opposing France and Germany.
Now Britain is gone, Berlin and Paris have become the most powerful states within the European Union, and the ideology of European integration and federalisation has less resistance. Therefore, while Britain would in theory be "welcomed back" to the European Union, it is naïve to assume that things would be "exactly the same" as it were before as if it were just reloading a saved game file, it would not. Any new membership of the EU for the UK would not be a reset, but a restart, premised on a fresh negotiation of new and contemporary terms, not old ones.
On a political level, the idea that Britain could quit the EU, and then seemingly out of desperation, ask to rejoin, lacks credibility and legitimacy. To them, it looks ridiculous, foolish, and weak, allowing them to subsequently dictate the flow of negotiations. The EU would assess Britain's bid with great scepticism. First, what if another right-wing government comes to power and becomes hostile to Europe again? Second, and based on that, what if successive British governments again try to undermine the EU integration project? To admit a British state that has just left and wants in again is an admission of grave uncertainty, a country which clearly "doesn't fit" and due to its unique geopolitical position, changes its mind every generation.
These factors would mean that the process to rejoin the EU would involve incredibly punishing terms unilaterally serving the interests of Brussels. However, because some in the British domestic environment are so religiously hostile to the event of Brexit, they fail to see that rejoining would in fact be even worse than leaving itself. This will also, if they are smart enough, provide an avenue for the political right to attack Burnham. They do not need to say that Brexit was a success, only that rejoining would constitute a national betrayal by creating an even worse scenario.
Burnham, however, is not stupid when it comes to politics, so we should assume for the time being that his comments are not by any means a promise, and merely a rhetorical gesture at least to mobilise remain and liberal minded voters to his cause. It will work, but none of this can or will heal the underlying division Brexit itself has posed to the country. The Labour Party has identified there is a huge divide, and that attempting to bridge that gap leads them to fall into the canyon. Thus, for now they are taking a side, but that won't make the reality of rejoining any more promising in the long run.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | Is there really a 'new era' of relations between the US and China
Opinion | What can we reasonably expect from the upcoming Xi-Trump summit in Washington
Comment