The next general election is shaping up to be dominated by Andy Burnham’s desire to re-enter the EU. But in doing so the prime minister has scratched at scars that have never healed. Should he succeed, he faces what may prove to be a tortuous process.
The battle has already begun, with the Tories and Reform UK immediately denouncing his “betrayal” of the referendum result. Time and public opinion have not stood still since then, and Burnham is confident that the majority of the electorate is today in favour of rejoining the bloc or, at the very least, developing closer ties. This brings us to the first of the questions Burnham must address.
Can he convince the EU we are serious?
It must not be forgotten that the EU has been hurt by Brexit as well. We left their club, we rejected them and, in doing so, we said the most unpleasant and, at times wholly untruthful, things. That may sound basic but it is true – they were battered, ground down and sore from the experience. They are human. Talk to anyone who worked for the EU or representatives from the member governments back then and they will recall the hostile, visceral nature of the build-up to the referendum, the subsequent debate, exit and aftermath. They would need to be certain that the British people are on side – a narrow majority, which could later be unpicked and persuaded, will not suffice.
Would a second referendum be necessary?
Burnham would likely make it an election issue, to be included in the Labour manifesto. If he wins a public mandate, in theory, there ought to be no requirement for a re-run of a separate EU vote. That is the view of Sadiq Khan, among others. But the EU is likely to insist upon it, as a precursor to commencing membership negotiations. Their argument is that they would want to be persuaded the decision is non-party political, and that a vote for a manifesto covers all manner of issues, only one of which is the EU. The case could then be made that the decision would last beyond the lifetime of the newly-elected government and across successive governments. Besides, virtually all countries joining have done so after a public ballot. So, I think we would face Referendum 2.0: the rematch.
Would we need to switch to the euro?
Previously, we had opt-outs, allowing us to stick with the pound and to remain outside the Schengen borderless travel zone that enables the free movement of people. This time, the EU would almost certainly try and insist upon those get-outs being dropped. One theory gaining ground in Brussels is that forcing us to fall into line would make it harder for us to leave later. In our defence we can cite the fact that six of the 27 members do not have the euro – although five of them are obliged to swap at some stage. One, Denmark, has a legal opt-out to use its own currency and we could pursue the same. A Schengen exclusion, should we still wish to follow that, might by contrast be easier to achieve.
Does the EU need formally to approve?
Yes, yes, and yes, in the sense that the European Commission, which would lead the process, would need to vote on its agreement. So too would a majority of the MEPs. Critically, as well, the member countries would also have a say and it is by no means guaranteed they would approve the UK resuming membership. Traditional anti-Britishness could re-surface and they could have agendas of their own – skilful diplomacy by our government and Foreign Office will have to be deployed.
How long will it take?
Talk of a quick resumption, “almost straightaway” from the likes of Khan, is fanciful. Catherine Barnard, professor in EU law at Cambridge University, reckons we could be looking at a decade. That is how long she estimates it will take to complete the negotiations – four to five years – followed by ratification, in which all the approvals are formally obtained, of similar length. Other experts say it might be shorter, with some saying two to three years of discussions, then two years for the formalities.
Are there other options?
Absolutely. We could attempt to rejoin the single market and Customs Union while not rejoining the EU itself. This would entail signing up to the European Economic Area, like Norway and Liechtenstein. We would add 2 to 3 per cent to our GDP and we would acquire four freedoms of movement – of goods, money, people and services.
We could “do a Switzerland” and obtain “frictionless access” to the single market with its attendant EU energy market, student schemes and space, digital and preventable disease research programmes, in return for free movement of people and payment of an annual sum (Switzerland pays £322m a year) into various EU funds. We could follow Canada and opt for associate membership – assuming it was offered. This is still in a formative stage and the full detail is not clear but it would see some sort of closer and freer relationship.
What happens next?
Burnham says he will set out all the various options around the forthcoming UK-EU summit. “And I will see if we can find consensus around one which will give us clarity about our position and the future of the continent that we live in.” He should realise, if he doesn’t already, that where the UK’s relations with the EU are concerned, achieving anything remotely approaching consensus is torture. This was never going to be easy.
Read MoreVictory for The Independent! The PM has broken the spell on Europe
The way back to Europe is rocky – but it is a road well worth taking
