What shall we call the return?

[SevenYellowHammers]

Briturn? Britsin? Britback?

or just a big dose of humble pie?

@SerendipityJane

Parties could include in their manifesto,

If elected, we will trigger Article 49 and apply to rejoin the EU.

They couldn’t say,

if elected UK will join the EU.

Reason is that all members have to accept. Even if the application is accepted, it doesn’t guarantee a deal could be agreed.

Mainly because it was what had been envisioned in 1973 (if not 1959).

So, it was known in 1973, that there would be 28 EU members by 2016? How?

History is quite clear around controlling migration. It doesn't work.

EU expansion eastwards made it much easier for Bulgarian and Romanian people to enter the EU.

@SerendipityJane

the Brexit referendum was a con as it was sold as non binding, and then Cunt Cameron did an end run around the constitution by making a political (not legal) promise to enact the result.

Cameron thought a remain result was a certainty. Hence, he wound his neck out by saying it was a once in a lifetime decision and the government would implement the decision.

Turned out that government couldn’t implement the result, but it had to be voted on by parliament. The outcome was 498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50.

A democracy which cannot change it's mind has ceased to be a democracy

I am okay with that. However, applications to join the EU are decided by the members unanimously, not by the applicants.

Looking at what polls are reporting, I am not convinced thee majority of UK wants to rejoin the EU.

@Smokeywater

Why has Scotland not had another referendum? The caveat of material change has happened.

Reason is that all members have to accept. Even if the application is accepted, it doesn’t guarantee a deal could be agreed.

So what's to stop all members agreeing in advance that were a newly elected UK government to apply to join - having made it a manifesto pledge - they would accept ?

So, it was known in 1973, that there would be 28 EU members by 2016? How?

Rather unfairly by actually reading the fucking Treaty of Rome.

"Any European State may apply to become a member of the Community. It shall address its application to the Council which, after obtaining the opinion of the Commission, shall act by means of a unanimous vote. The conditions of admission and the amendments to this Treaty necessitated thereby shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State."

That's what referenda are for.

BrexIn

ThankFuckForThatXit

Fixit

What material change?

@SerendipityJane

So what's to stop all members agreeing in advance that were a newly elected UK government to apply to join - having made it a manifesto pledge - they would accept ?

Why would the EU spend time discussing an application that has not been made?

I am not a great believer in polls. However, YouGov poll dated 9 June 2026 recorded that 31% thought their household finances would improve if UK rejoined the EU. A recent Gaurdian poll recorded that 29% were strongly in favour of a rejoin.

They are not high numbers. So, what makes you think a party that had rejoin in their manifesto would win?

@Smokeywater

What material change?

The UK leaving the EU is a material change that occurred after the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.

So, what makes you think a party that had rejoin in their manifesto would win?

Did I say that ?

@SerendipityJane

Did I say that ?

Not directly. However, you stated that all EU members could agree in advance that UK application to join would be accepted if a party who had in their manifesto to apply to join won.

Why would the EU do that if there was no certainty that a rejoin party would win? I would say such action would make the EU look silly.

Accepting an application that hasn’t been made makes no sense as it allows the applicant to specify the terms of a rejoin in advance. ie. the recipients of the application are desperate for the applicant to apply.

And there we have it. Having had a fact provided, we just get a load of flubbery "buts".

So you admit the fact is that it's entirely possible for all EU members to come up with a response to a putative application from the UK to (re)join ?

I will grant that it's not a given, and there are many nuances that make it difficult and potentially undesirable. In fact in a pass-heading-off exercise, I think it unlikely.

But that is nowhere near equivalent to your assertions (on their behalf) of what may or may not be possible.

Happy to argue facts. But - as always when dealing with rabid Brexiteers - you have to make sure they are facts first, and not just a "bloke sez" variant.

Incidentally - just ahead of the next pass. Nothing in my desire to see the UK return to the EU should be construed as some sort of shorthand for "The EU is perfect and I want to have it's children". Far from it. There are plenty of issues with various EU organs and processes. However as a voting - and powerful - member, the UK is ideally placed to ensure it can extract maximum utility from the EU.

And by "utility" I mean the best for the most à la Jeremy Bentham

@SerendipityJane

So you admit the fact is that it's entirely possible for all EU members to come up with a response to a putative application from the UK to (re)join ?

Almost anything is possible, but at what odds? I can’t see 27 members taking the time to agree an application to join the EU before an application has been made. How would they gain from investing the amount of time it would take? That it’s short odds is verified by your post,

I will grant that it's not a given, and there are many nuances that make it difficult and potentially undesirable. In fact in a pass-heading-off exercise, I think it unlikely

Underline added by myself.