I'm still seeing people who are concerned about feasibility of #RejoinEU on the basis of misunderstanding the accession process.
1: it's a process. Not a request, to be accepted or rejected. Think less slamming door, more, please wipe your feet.
2: no applicant is ready to join when they apply.
Two whole stages, screening and negotiation, are devoted to identifying gaps with EU law, and closing them.
Accession can be thought of as the process of becoming admissible.
3: the first stage, the Copenhagen criteria and those in the TEU, is not an 11+. The EU likes to expand. Copenhagen was created to see if former Soviet satellites had really moved on. That they were democracies, able to withstand market forces, with ability to enforce EU law.
4: democracy is also not an on-off switch. Think of it as a volume knob. UK used to be about 8. BJ has taken it down to 7. But the EU only needs 6. You and I may feel rightly aggrieved at the Government's damage to democracy. Some of you started following me when I wrote a letter
to Gove about this.
But please don't confuse our strong internal critique with the assessment the Commission would be asked to make. We still have elections, multi-parties, unions, media (does anywhere have "perfect" independent media, whatever that is?), courts etc.
The only realistic thing that would present an obstacle is if we leave ECHR. But rejoining that one is a doddle, it's just 21 days notice to Parlt & sign the instrument of accession. And again, EU wouldn't slam any door, it would indicate a need for progress on that issue.
5: anything Johnson does can be undone. This is very basic UK constitutional theory.
In this thread I'm not going to tackle baseless speculations like "they'll never have us back" or "we'll lose all the opt-outs". Check my blog for more on that.
But please,
If you're going to argue against #RejoinEU, don't make up man down the pub scare stories about the process. It's a boring technical matter, not an emotive psychodrama.
Now we all remember how @nadhimzahawi was curiously well-poised on how to frame this when the story broke. I mean the pseudo-story, of course, how poor little AZ was doing its best & horrid old EU was doing vaccine nationalism. We remember how UK press jumped to frame the issue,
UK Brexiteers appear to be using health & lives of other human beings to manufacture a situation which they can mischaracterise to discredit the EU, distract from HMG's Covid failures, and crush the nascent #RejoinEU movement.
2/ When the story broke, @nadhimzahawi already knew to frame it as "vaccine nationalism", the media unquestioningly parroted AZ's lines, @Peston eg producing a thread of pure, unattributed-source propaganda.
Eager Brexit supporters have taken to social media claiming ...
3/ the episode vindicates their view of the EU, which they use as a basis to regurgitate their most extreme hate-speech caricatures.
Let's pause to remember the coincidence with 100,000 UK deaths.
Let's pause to remember fishing, financial services, returned parcels, ...
What does Endre Kormos know of Sabisky's views, fantasies and advice?
What do St Luke's or @JustinWelby think of a man who organises Mass for abuse survivors associating with a man who fantasises about incest? And who co-organises those services.