Britain will rejoin the EU within 15 years, former Brussels chief predicts

And then promptly complain about it

Britain will rejoin the European Union within 15 years, a former European Commission chief has predicted.

Speaking about the UK’s decision to leave the EU at the UCL Centre for Finance, Romano Prodi – who served as president of the European Commission from 1999 to 2004 – said: “I’m betting that in 15 years the UK will come back.”

His optimism for Britain to rejoin the bloc is not matched by Jean-Claude Juncker, another former European Commission chief, who in July suggested it would take “a century or two”.

Speaking to Politico, he said: “When you leave a boat, you can’t get back on the same boat.”

Hmm.

So, I think that the general Rejoin argument is probably twofold:

• The leadership was generally in favor.

• The referendum was close and happened during a time when events were unfavorable towards Remain (the European migrant crisis).

I've argued myself that I don't think that it will happen for at least some decades, and might never happen.

I don't think that I'd say "won't happen for two centuries", though. That is a long time politically to predict anything with finite time bounds. Compare the world in 1800 to the world in 2000. That's a very different world.

The arguments I've made in the past against a near-term Rejoin being likely are:

• Politically, it will be hard for the EU to permit the UK to rejoin with the opt-outs that the UK had. It has denied new members that wanted opt-outs on the grounds that those aren't being done any more. The EU would need to unanimously vote to add the UK and extend it those opt-outs. And in the UK, the referendum that was close was on being in the EU with those opt-outs, some of which I understand would be politically difficult in the UK to not have. So the very close Leave referendum is perhaps not the best guide to a hypothetical Rejoin referendum, since the latter would probably not have the same state of affairs on offer that the former did.

• The EU is not the same EU that the UK left. At the time it left, the UK had been a voice in shaping the EU. As a result, that EU was about as close to the EU that the UK might want as could be expected. But subsequent to that, it has changed. For one famous example, shortly before the referendum, the pro-EU Nick Clegg assured the British public that the idea of an unpopular "EU Army" was an absurdity, and while I don't think that I'd quite say that the EU has an army, certainly that phrase and the idea of military integration have moved forward.

• While things have cooled a bit, the UK has some of the same issues that the EU did with the UK in the form of Scottish secessionists. Scotland was not permitted a second referendum using a similar justification on any kind of near term second referendum. Politically, I think it will be difficult in the UK to hold another near-term referendum on EU membership while also not handing Scottish secessionists another near-term referendum.

• Political effect of inertia. Before, it was with Remain, and now with Leave. Reading pre-referendum analysis, my understanding is that it was generally agreed that the status quo was considered "normal" and had an inherent advantage. Leveraging that was, I expect, why Britain's pro-EU leaders had the UK join, spent some time, and then held a Leave referendum (as they had on the European Coal and Steel Community prior to that) -- to obtain favorable conditions giving the benefit of inertia to being in the EU. But they cannot really repeat that trick subsequent to a Leave referendum.

• Economic disruption and the greater political weight of incumbents. Any change in economic environment involves disruption, will cause people to be laid off and businesses to go under. These existing organizations are more organized and speak with a louder voice than the not-yet-extant businesses and job slots who will exist in a post-change environment. It's one reason why free trade agreements -- though normally advantageous to a country as a whole -- are hard to get through, as the businesses who will go under and workers who will lose their jobs are organized and very vocal on the matter, whereas the businesses who will be formed as a result of the change and the workers who will be hired do not exist, probably don't know who they are, and have little effective voice.

• Precedent for political consensus-building. Part of doing a referendum on weighty matters is as a political tool to build a political consensus for an outcome, to get the issue off the table. As a political leader, one doesn't want to have opponents of the result simply keep demanding a new referendum a few years down the road. It's harder to say "no" if those opponents can point to an earlier time an issue came up and say "but they got a second referendum".

As to the "might never happen" argument, I think that there are arguments for the UK to be a member, that it would be better-off in and the EU with it in...but that rather similar arguments would apply to Canada and the US merging, yet the two show no serious political movements to do so, though they have existed alongside each other for a long time and maintain an amiable relationship. It's clearly possible for that sort of thing to be a stable state of affairs politically.