UK bid to rejoin EU: ‘so many bumps in the road’

This interview is part of a series by The Connexion on the UK Prime Minister’s recent comments about rejoining the EU, how likely a return is and what form it might take.  

Catherine Barnard, professor of European law at Cambridge University, described the UK prime minister Andy Burnham's new attitude towards the EU as “significant”, but warned against expecting an early return.

“I’ve told my students not to hold their breath waiting for us to rejoin because there are so many bumps in the road,” she said.

Prof Barnard said the UK would be considered to satisfy the basic legal requirements to make a credible application to rejoin – “but that's when the problems start because we would have to negotiate terms”.

She said the UK could be seen as needing the EU more than the EU needs the UK, weakening its position in negotiations, which she added was also the case in 1972. 

The UK would be expected to make full contributions to the EU budget, without the rebate it formerly had. It would also be required to sign up to the principle of eventually joining the euro, though that is not the same as actually doing so, and Sweden is an example of an EU country that has not.

Free movement of people would also be required, which was one of the reasons people voted for Brexit in 2016.

“Let’s assume magic happened and all of that was agreed – then there needs to be unanimous agreement amongst the 27 that we can rejoin. 

“By that stage, we don't know. With [the rising popularity of] Le Pen in France and [far-right] AfD in Germany, we don't know what will happen. Back in the 1960s, the French blocked two attempts at accession.

“And then, even if the 27 vote unanimously that we can join, the states have to approve it according to their constitutional requirements.”

A referendum is likely to be required in France, she said.

However, before any of this happened, a referendum in the UK would probably be required.

“There is no legal obligation, but there are two strong reasons for one. One is that it was a referendum that took us out. Also, to go back in, the EU would need to be convinced that we are really committed to this.

“But then there is a problem: do you have a referendum, as they did in Iceland, before negotiations start, in which case you do not know what the terms are, or do you have a referendum after the negotiations, but then the EU might say ‘what's the point in negotiating with a country that may say no?’.

“Perhaps I am being unduly pessimistic, but given the last 10 years, I think we need a lot of realism about this.” 

Looking at the alternative options, she said one would be to join a customs union, as Turkey has done. However, she said this is “not working well” and “there are still a lot of barriers at the border”.

A customs union would also have limited benefits.

“There is talk about joining a single market, but there is no legal route to join the single market directly. The only route is to become an EFTA [European Free Trade Association] country, and then join the EEA [the European Economic Area – the so-called Norway model].”

However, that is not something Prof Barnard would envisage for the UK.

“The reason is that we would still be a rule-taker, not a rule-maker, and a taker in such a wide range of areas – including financial services – that the Bank of England would say ‘no’.”

There could be more benefits to the UK to opt for a ‘Swiss-style’ deal, and it would allow the UK to “pick and choose”.

“The trouble is, the EU hates the Swiss deal because there are about 150 separate agreements.”

So, that is why full membership makes more sense, Prof Barnard said.

A looser, ‘association’ with the EU, that may be arranged with Canada, is seen by the EU as more appropriate to states that cannot fully join because they are not in the continent of Europe, so that is unlikely to be welcomed, she said. 

Prof Barnard said the most concrete benefits to Connexion readers would come with re-establishing single market membership and free movement of people – although it would take full membership to regain voting rights.

The UK would also benefit economically from being part of a large trading bloc again – “we have had a hit of about 5-6% of GDP”, Prof Barnard said. Businesses would also welcome the simplifications. Smaller businesses had stopped exporting as a result of Brexit. 

The UK would also regain additional powers to fight irregular migration from being part of the EU’s Dublin agreement [on return of migrants] and the Eurodac database enabling it to check people who have failed to get asylum elsewhere.

The UK may be required to join the Schengen area if it rejoins, but there could be some flexibility on that, she said. It would be reluctant to do it, partly because it does not have ID cards, she said.

Easier recognition of professional qualifications would be another benefit, and Prof Barnard said it is likely that transitional provisions would be made including UK qualifications passed while the UK was outside the EU.

Asked what she sees happening over the next year, she said: “I think the UK will carry on working on the existing deals, to make sure they work and make sure they are implemented.

“But secondly, I think there is going to be a battle royal in preparation for the next election, and that is the [Labour] manifesto. I think that is what Burnham is testing the water over at the moment.”

“What he is trying to work out is, is there an appetite to go down the route for a referendum on rejoining? Or is it just too difficult? And in which case, what do we do then?”

Asked whether the first step will be to show flexibility at the coming EU/UK summit over matters such as the youth experience scheme and allowing EU students to study at UK home fees, Prof Barnard said she has been told that the issue is seen as “the biggest stumbling block” in the current talks.

“The UK is worried about the costs and about asymmetry – that more European nationals might want to come to the UK than UK nationals who study in the EU.”

Another current question is the UK’s potential inclusion – or exclusion – from new ‘Made in Europe’ legislation, set to introduce requirements for products to contain a substantial proportion of EU-made content in some public procurement and publicly supported schemes, in sectors such as cars, steel, aluminium and clean technologies.

“It is an issue, but one that could perhaps be kicked further down the road,” she said.