Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Which means, I think, that it will actually be easier for the Tories to pivot to being pro-EU that it will for Labour; the Tories are much less vulnerable to a faux-patriotic attack from Labour than Labour are vulnerable to such an attack from the Tories.

There are other reasons, of course, why it would be difficult for the Tories to make such a pivot. They have pretty effectively purged the party of anybody who recognises the need for such a pivot, and not only all the current leading figures in the part but also all their rivals and potential replacements are too identified with Brexit to be able to pivot without being (justifiably) accused of rank hypocrisy. There needs to be generational change in the Tories before they can shift back to supporting EU membership.

(But, once they do, Labour will follow them faster than a ferret on meths.)

In the hypothetical that we're looking at the UK wouldn't, I think, get the degree of leeway that Sweden has been given.

The Brexit process was systematically disfigured by the UK's bad faith — adopting negotiating positions and then, having secured concession on that basis, attempting to resile from them; entering into agreements that had never intended to honour; etc. This was pretty shocking to the EU, which it itself the creation of agreements and treaties. If agreements and treaties are to be made lightly and disregarded for political convenience, that's an existential threat to the EU, and not something we can tolerate.

So, part of the UK become a credible (re-)accession candidate is persuading the EU that this was a temporary aberration by an otherwise normal, grown-up, self-respecting sovereign state, that does in fact act in good faith when making agreements and entering into treaties.

That pretty much rules out a UK government negotiating into an accession treaty that provides for the UK to adopt the euro when it meets the convergence criteria, and then campaigning in the ensuing referendum on the basis that, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, we have no intention of giving up sterling and will arrange matters so that we never meet the convergence criteria (or from doing those two things in the opposite order; it doesn't matter). The very clear message to the UK will be "if you want to join the EU but not adopt the euro then you need to be honest and upfront about that, and seek to negotiate an accession agreement that gives you an express opt-out. We might agree; we might not; we'll think about it if you ask for that, and our answer may depend on what you offer in return. But there can be no question of you signing up to treaty commitments about measures that you have no intention of taking. As far as you're concerned we're done with that, and any hint that you are not is fatal to your accession application".

I mean, it'll be more politely expressed than that, but that'll be the gist of it.

The British PM, Sunak, just snubbed the Greek PM yesterday.

So clearly they are not going down the route of ".. let's build bridges with our European neighbours .."

It smacks of a political stunt to please the Tory base and the Daily Mail. The Greek government's position was well known long before this weekend.

The UK will need all countries to be onside for a successful application. I see no reason why Greece would not hold it up. But my point was that the UK , under Sunak, are not trying to build any bridges with EU countries. And, ironically, the Greek PM is probably closer to the Tories, in policy, than a lot of EU leaders.

And today, Cameron is visiting Brussels to try to mend fences. (Meeting NATO but he is hoping to have a meeting with Maroš Šefčovič ).

But the meetings the Greek PM was having with both Sunak and Starrmer was, at least in part, to further that partnership? It was the Mitsotakis exact words in that interview with Laura Kuenssberg. The snub from Sunak can only be that the UK government does not agree with the position of the British Museum on this partnership.

Greece did hold up FYRM application for less so i wouldn't be at all surprised to see them hold up any application from the UK. Although realistically, any application will be decades away so both Sunak and Mitsotakis will be just names from history.

Doesn't the UK still have lots of 'compliance' things to do? It's not like they're checking imports thoroughly, are they? I don't think much has changed in the last few years. This might be why Cameron's meeting with Sefcovic, I thought there was a 2025 deadline that no doubt the UK will whinge and miss.

Whatever about having to wait for a new generation to emerge in the UK, before a return to the EU might be contemplated, there's probably a similar need to wait for the current generation of EU commissioners, MEPs and member state leaders, who had to deal with the UK's breathtakingly awful "negotiation tactics", to retire or move on to other positions.

I'd imagine quite a few of the current incumbents have far more sympathy for De Gaulle's position on UK membership now than they did previously.

They mostly already have moved on. Michel Barnier, who was head of the EU's UK Task Force, resigned in 2021. He's 72, and unlikely to return to that or any other gig. His sidekick Sabine Weyand moved on even earlier, in June 2019; she's now Director-General for Trade. Even the EU ambassador to the UK has changed; the first ambassador, João Vale de Almeida, retired in January 2023 and was replaced by Pedro Serrano.

The current point man for relations with the UK is Maroš Šefčovič, who is the EU co-chair of the Partnership Council established by the TCA, but that's very much a second job for him; his main gig is being  Vice-President of the Commission for Interinstitutional Relations and for the European Green Deal, and Acting Commissioner for Climate Action.

If the UK were to apply to accede, the application would likely be handled by the Commission's Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations. The current Commissioner is Olivér Várhelyi, but of course by the time the UK actually applies it could be someone else; all the current Commissioners' terms expire next year and, even if their national governments reappoint them, there'll be a new Commission with a new allocation of responsibilities. And matter wouldn't be primarily handled by the Commissioner anyway; someone at Director level or below would be the main point of contact.

Hrm. So, besides being a 'rule taker' going forward, seems like they'll want to change the agreements one they finally decide that not checking things is a bad idea.

There'll definitely be a corporate memory of the Brexit process and how it unfolded. And, yeah, it will definitely condition the EU's response to any (at thist stage, hypothetica) approach from the UK about re-acceding, or joining the Single Market, or whatever. I don't think this will depend on the same EU officials handling the approach as handled Brexit — that almost certainly won't happen. But whoever is involved on behalf of the EU will be aware of Brexit and how it unfolded, and they will be concerned to see the UK demonstrate that Things Have Changed.