When Brexit Happens, Would Leavers Ever Consider Rejoining the EU if the EU Improved on Its Faults?
Many argue that the conditions for a successful re-entry to the EU are unlikely to ever be met. Historically, bureaucratic entities have shown little inclination to initiate significant reforms, especially not in their own favor. In the case of the EU, this pattern is only reinforced.
The EU: A Super Bureaucracy
Despite the EU's claim to be an international organization, the reality is that it possesses unparalleled bureaucratic control. Unlike organizations such as the WTO or NATO, which are clearly defined and limited in scope, the EU's mission statement is nebulous and expansive, leading to a broad range of issues and policies.
The complexity and reach of the EU make it a prime target for reform, but this also means that any changes to the EU would be met with significant resistance. The idea of a self-reform is not only optimistic but often misguided, especially considering the EU's past attempts to create a constitution, which only further centralized power rather than limiting it.
Why the EU Is Not Willing to Reform
Those who advocate for the rejoining of the EU often point to the idea that the objections to EU membership are based on lies and right-wing propaganda, allowing certain political parties to deflect blame onto the EU. This approach is expedient and avoids accountability for the actions of their own governments.
The fact is that the EU is not a democratic entity in the truest sense. Its principles and policies are more guided by bureaucratic inertia than by the needs and desires of the member states. Reforming the EU would require not just a change in perception but a fundamental shift in its governing structure, which is not something the EU is likely to voluntarily undertake.
Leavers and Rejoining: A Rationale Game
The 'faults' of the EU, as often cited, are perhaps a misnomer. In many cases, these perceived flaws are not genuine issues but rather the consequences of the EU's rigid and often inflexible policies and governance. The problem lies not in the EU's structure but in the political and economic behaviors of its member states and the EU's inability to adapt to the needs of its citizens.
The question of whether leavers would consider rejoining the EU due to improvements is essentially a non-starter. The EU is not going to amend or adjust its principles in any way that would make it more palatable or beneficial for the UK, especially given its history of resistance to reform. This points to a systemic issue rather than a simple matter of political will.
The failure of attempts at EU reform, such as the failed Constitution Treaty, speaks to the EU's unwillingness to relinquish its grip on power. The leavers recognize this, and while some remainers may still hold out hope for changes, these hopes are unrealistic and based on a misunderstanding of the EU's true nature and motivations.
From a pragmatic standpoint, rejoining the EU would be a hollow victory if the core issues that led to Brexit are not addressed. For the UK and its citizens, a true resolution would require genuine reform that puts human needs and democratic principles at its core, something the EU is not currently equipped to provide.
Ultimately, the EU's resistance to reform and its overarching bureaucratic nature make the idea of a successful rejoining highly improbable. The leavers, who have now tasted the sovereignty and control they craved, are unlikely to give that up easily. The rational course of action for the UK would be to focus on finding alternative solutions that align with its national interests and the needs of its citizens.