I was asked recently why I never write these days about Brexit, beyond posts on Twitter, or X as it now is.

The answer is simple.

Brexit is done. Finished.

The UK is no longer a member of the European Union. That was the point of Brexit. To take the UK out of the EU. As Rishi Sunak, the UK prime minister and other ministers are forever telling us, the UK is now an “independent” country. Not that it was not an independent country when it was in the EU. Some people just liked to pretend that it was a “colony”, somehow or other held captive by Brussels.

But it was always free to leave. No one in the European Union tried to stop it leaving. In fact, the UK left the EU a lot easier than many countries left the British Empire. Very few countries ever left the British Empire as easily as the UK left the EU.

What happens now that the UK is no longer a member of the EU is a matter of internal UK politics. How is the economy to be ordered? What should be the relationship with the European Union? The EU still the UK’s largest export market, not to mention the source of almost half its imports? What should be the framework for travel for both holidays and business between the UK and the EU? Can up and coming British bands still gig in Europe?

Of course, the answer to some of these questions involves the EU. But they are not Brexit questions. They are post-Brexit questions. Brexit is done.

Post-Brexit Questions

Take the case of the proposed UKCA mark, originally intended to replace the EU’s CE mark in the UK market.

The CE (Conformité Européenne) mark is used by the EU to certify that a wide range of items – from electrical goods and construction materials to fireworks and toys – meet safety standards.

The CE mark had been expected to be replaced by a new UKCA (UK Conformity Assessed) mark for goods sold in Great Britain from the end of 2024, after several extensions to the deadline for the changeover. It was a Brexit vanity project, of no real benefit.

Business had been complaining that the UKCA mark, which would only be recognised in the UK, simply duplicated CE standards and added unnecessary costs. Business that exported to the EU would still have to apply for CE certification. As Peter Foster in the Financial Times pointed out, this can only be done through testing laboratories in the EU as the EU does not recognise testing laboratories in “third countries”, which is what the UK is after Brexit. What future for UK testing facilities?

So, in early August, the UK government announced that manufacturers could continue to use the European CE mark for goods placed on the UK market. Neither British nor European manufactures would have to apply for the UKCA (here).

The point I want to make is that this is and was a purely British decision. The decision to try and introduce the UKCA in the first place was a British decision. The decision to row back from it was also British. Certainly, Brexit created the circumstances. But there was no inevitability about what happened. Brexit did not require it to happen. It happened because of UK political decisions. The EU had no hand in the matter, other than to insist that goods placed on the EU market had to meet EU standards and be CE certified.

What a future UK government decides to do about this issue will be entirely a UK decision. The EU will play no part in it. It is a post-Brexit decision.

The same goes for the decision to yet again delay UK border controls on foodstuffs imported from the EU. The EU imposed border controls on imports from the UK from Day 1, January 2021. The UK has consistently delayed doing so. Whether it has the personnel and infrastructure to do so may be open to doubt. But the latest delay is said to be due to the fact that imposing the controls now would add to business costs and fuel inflation. A clear admission that Brexit imposes costs when, according to the Brexiters, all it was ever supposed to do was to show the road to sunny uplands, all gain and no pain.

Again, this is a post-Brexit decision on the part of the UK government. The EU has no say in whether the UK government imposes border controls on goods from the EU, provided such controls are in accordance with the terms of the EU/UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. If the UK decides not to impose controls then that is down to the UK.

Horizon is the EU’s flagship research and development support program. It has a budget of around €95 billion. With Brexit, the UK left the program. UK universities and researchers are desperate to rejoin. Terms to rejoin are on offer from the EU. The prime minister is reluctant to sign the deal because he wants a guarantee that for every £ the UK puts in, it will get a £ back. For the prime minister, intangible benefits are of no value. This is another example of a British, post-Brexit decision. It betrays a “Little Britain” mentality. We want our money back.

Europeans give Brexit Little Thought

In truth, very, very few in mainland Europe or elsewhere nowadays give any thought to Brexit. Ordinary citizens just shrug their shoulders if you mention it. The political class has too many other things to worry about. The Russian invasion of Ukraine. The US’s Inflation Reduction Act and its impact on European businesses. The climate crisis. The economic issues arising from the aging of Europe’s population and the need for immigration to fill labour market gaps. The political fallout from such immigration.

The EU appears to have gotten on very well without the British. With the exception of the creation of the Single Market, backed robustly by Margaret Thatcher, the UK attitude to all things European was generally “find out what those foreigners are up to and tell them to stop”.

And when the “foreigners” did get up to something, the UK wanted an opt-out. From Schengen, from the euro, from justice and home affairs. The last push by Cameron was to look for an opt-out from “ever closer union” and from “freedom of movement” so the UK could block EU citizens moving to the UK. He got the first, but not the second. But the Brexit referendum blew away Cameron’s deal and, in my view, the EU was the better for it. I do not believe that a semi-detached UK was in the best interests of the EU. Would the Covid recovery fund of €750 billion have been agreed if the UK was still around the table? Doubtful.

In my own area of expertise, labour relation, there are now laws going through the system that would have run into unrelenting opposition from a UK Conservative government. I make no comments on the merits or otherwise of these laws. My point is that without an ever-present “UK brake” the system seems to run much more smoothly.

There is no great rush to have the UK back. Who wants a delinquent back in the house, a delinquent who stormed off in a huff, when there is no evidence that they have changed their ways that caused them to leave in the first place? That would be madness.

Brexit – Rejoin?

I write this in August 2023. Opinion polls are now consistently showing that a majority in the UK would vote to rejoin the EU if it was on offer. They regard Brexit as an economic failure. What is there to show for it?

But, in my view, the UK will not be rejoining the EU anytime soon.

First, none of the major political parties want to go there. Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour party and the next prime minister if the polls are to be believed, has said he would not seek to rejoin the Single Market and the Customs Union if he forms the next government. He says he will “Make Brexit Work”. Which is a bit like saying that I will successfully roll a snowball up a hill in hell. It is something that just can’t be done.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first demand they pledge fealty to Brexit.

Second, as we have already discussed, there is no groundswell within the European Union to “get the Brits back”. There are no leading politicians expending political capital on pushing the idea. It does not figure on the political agenda anywhere. Certainly, you will hear pieties about the “door always been open” but no one is taking steps to pull the bolts back.

Third, many in the UK, perhaps too many, who say they would vote to rejoin the EU misunderstand the situation. The take the word “rejoin” to mean returning to the EU on the old terms, with the budget rebate and all the opt-outs. That “rejoin” will not be on offer. Some seem to believe that all the UK has to do is to rock up in Brussels and announce, “I’m home” and it will be greeted like the prodigal son. That is just not going to happen.

By now, anyone interested in the mechanics of Brexit will know all about Article 50, the procedure through which the UK left the EU. Books have been written about it, including my own little free offering here.

Get used to learning about Article 49, the procedure through which countries can apply to join the EU. To save you looking it up, here it is (we have added the link to Article 2).

Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account.

The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Note the requirements for unanimity both in the Council and in the ratification vote in Member States. Note also the reference to “conditions of eligibility”. Any guesses what they might be? The Euro? Schengen? Freedom of Movement? Justice? Foreign Policy? Don’t bother telling me that the EU will waive all these because the UK is “special”. It is not. It is a medium-size economy off the Eurasian landmass. And getting more “medium” by the day.

There are no shortcuts. Just because you used to be a member does not get you into the club through a backdoor. In fact, that you used to be a member and left will make entry even more difficult. The EU would want guarantees that you are not going to walk out again if there were to be a change of government from the one that applied to rejoin. If the major opposition party is jumping up and down shouting “Brexit betrayal” the EU will be in no hurry to have the enfant terrible back. Why would it?

So, there is no “rejoin” if rejoin is seen as a return to the status quo ante before Brexit happened. Despite what some seem to believe, there will be no special deals for the UK. If the UK wants to “join” the EU, it will be on the same terms as everyone else. Why would the major EU economies, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, want to give the UK a free pass?

There will be little or no “negotiations”. There never is with applicant countries. “Here’s the deal if you want to join. Take it or leave it. Sure, we can negotiate transition terms. But they will be finite and specific. No airy-fairy stuff. Especially for you, UK, because you have form.”

In their book How to Lose a Referendum: the definitive story of why the UK voted for Brexit, Paul Goldsmith and Jason Farrell explain why every time a UK politician refers to there being a ‘negotiation’ with the European Union in which both sides might compromise, they should think of Con O’Neill. O’Neill was a lifelong civil servant who was Britain’s chief official negotiator when it joined the then European Community in the early 1970s. His account of the process remained secret for many years. ‘Britain’s Entry into the European Community: Report on the Negotiations of 1970-1972’, was not published until September 2000.

In O’Neill’s view, the imperative was that Britain should join the then EEC: “What mattered was to get into the Community … Therefore, the only possible approach to the negotiations could be ‘Swallow the lot, and swallow it now’”. “The lot” referred to the web of rules that the EU has created by the time the UK applied to join. Many politicians thought the EEC should change these rules to make UK membership more palatable for the UK.

Why had everything to be swallowed? It was not because of malice or political enmity, said O’Neill, but because “almost every conceivable Community policy … is the resultant of a conflict of interests between members, and has embedded in it features representing a compromise between the interests”. If it were to be opened up, just because the British had an objection, the whole laborious compromise would fall apart.

The Brexit negotiations, as detailed in books by Barnier, De Rynck, Laffan, Grey went the same. The EU was not prepared to bend to facilitate the departing UK. It will not bend to facilitate a UK that wants to return.

Rejoiners need to be realistic. The road back to Brussels will be long and winding. The lifting will be heavy. And, to mix the song references, it will not be a Yellowbrick Road.