Reversing Brexit: Should Britain Rejoin the European Union Without Another Referendum?

Written by Andrew Jones

Disclaimer: This article is published for informational, educational and editorial purposes and represents an opinion-led discussion of UK constitutional law, democracy, Brexit and the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union. It does not constitute legal, political, financial or economic advice. Political opinions differ, and readers are encouraged to consider evidence from multiple reputable sources before reaching their own conclusions.

Is Another Brexit Referendum Really The Answer?

A decade after the 2016 EU referendum, the question of Britain’s relationship with Europe has returned to the political agenda.

There is now renewed discussion about whether the United Kingdom should move significantly closer to the European Union, potentially through a customs union, participation in the single market, a new bespoke arrangement or, ultimately, an application to rejoin the EU.

Recent political discussion has even reopened the possibility of full EU membership and whether such a decision might eventually be placed before the electorate in another referendum.

However, Britain should ask a more fundamental question:

Should an extraordinarily complicated constitutional, economic, legal and geopolitical decision ever again be reduced to a simple “Yes” or “No” referendum?

The Problem With Reducing Complex Government Decisions to a Binary Vote

There is an uncomfortable comparison that deserves consideration.

A business owner would rarely gather a random selection of members of the public, provide them with competing advertisements about how the business should be run, and then allow a 50% plus one majority to determine the company’s future international trading arrangements, regulatory structure, employment framework and long-term finances.

The directors, advisers, accountants, lawyers and specialists would ordinarily examine the evidence and make the decision because that is what they are employed or appointed to do.

Yet something vastly more complicated happened with Brexit.

Members of the electorate were effectively asked to determine Britain’s future relationship with the European Union through one binary question.

That involved subjects including:

Constitutional law;
International treaties;
Customs arrangements;
International trade;
Tariffs and regulatory barriers;
Freedom of movement;
Immigration policy;
Employment law;
Environmental regulation;
Agriculture;
Fisheries;
Financial services;
Data protection;
Security cooperation;
Scientific research;
Higher education;
Supply chains;
Cross-border businesses;
Northern Ireland;
Human rights;
And Britain’s wider geopolitical position.

It would be unreasonable to expect the average citizen, whether they voted Leave or Remain, to possess specialist knowledge across all of these areas.

That is not an insult to the electorate.

It is an acknowledgement that government is complicated.

We employ politicians, civil servants, economists, lawyers, diplomats and policy specialists precisely because modern states cannot sensibly be governed through public votes on every complicated technical question.

Representative Democracy Exists for a Reason

The United Kingdom is primarily a representative parliamentary democracy, rather than a system of government conducted through permanent referendums.

People elect MPs to scrutinise evidence, debate legislation, consult experts and make decisions on behalf of the country.

Referendums can undoubtedly have democratic value, particularly when fundamental constitutional questions arise.

However, democracy does not necessarily mean asking the public to decide every technical policy matter themselves.

There is an important difference between asking:

“Who do you want to represent you?”

and asking:

“Which regulatory, customs, immigration and international treaty framework should Britain operate under for the next generation?”

The second question requires far more than political preference.

It requires detailed analysis.

Politicians Are Paid to Make Difficult Decisions

There is another uncomfortable issue.

From 1 April 2026, the basic annual salary of a UK Member of Parliament is £98,599. Some MPs receive additional salaries for other parliamentary responsibilities.

The argument can therefore reasonably be made that MPs should be prepared to make difficult decisions.

They are elected representatives.

They have access to government departments, parliamentary researchers, select committees, legal advisers, economists, civil servants, academics, industry experts and enormous amounts of evidence unavailable to the average voter.

If Parliament concludes, after proper scrutiny, that Brexit has damaged Britain’s economic or strategic interests, why should politicians be afraid to act?

Governments routinely make enormous decisions without referendums.

Budgets are not put to referendums.

Tax rates are not determined by referendums.

Military spending is not decided through referendums.

Employment legislation is not voted on individually by the electorate.

International agreements are negotiated by governments.

Yet EU membership, arguably one of the most complicated international relationships Britain has ever had, was ultimately reduced to a binary public vote.

The 2016 Referendum Was Not Legally Binding

There is also an important constitutional distinction which is sometimes overlooked.

The European Union Referendum Act 2015 authorised the referendum, established the voting arrangements and dealt with matters including campaigning and administration.

However, the legislation did not provide that the referendum result would automatically alter UK law.

The House of Commons Library subsequently explained that the referendum was not legally binding upon the Government because the 2015 Act contained no provision automatically implementing its outcome.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee similarly described the referendum as, in strict legal terms, advisory, while recognising its enormous political significance.

The Government nevertheless chose to honour the result politically, and Parliament subsequently enacted the legislation required for withdrawal.

This distinction matters today.

There is no constitutional rule saying that Britain could only change its relationship with the EU through another referendum.

Parliament remains sovereign.

Would Another Brexit Referendum Heal Britain, Or Divide It Again?

Another referendum could easily become another deeply polarising political battle.

The first referendum divided families, communities and political parties.

Campaign slogans attempted to communicate extraordinarily complicated economic and constitutional questions within a few words.

Social media amplified political messaging.

Immigration became one of the dominant issues.

And years of parliamentary conflict followed.

Repeating the exercise risks reopening exactly the same divisions.

Britain could spend another several years arguing about:

Leave versus Remain.

Meanwhile, businesses, public services and international partners would once again be left wondering which regulatory system Britain would eventually adopt.

There is also the possibility of an extraordinarily close result.

Imagine another referendum producing:

51% Rejoin
49% Stay Out

Would that finally settle the argument?

Probably not.

The losing side could immediately demand another vote.

That is one of the dangers of attempting to resolve complicated constitutional issues through narrow binary majorities.

Brexit and the Promise of Controlling Immigration

Immigration was one of the most powerful arguments used during the Brexit campaign.

Leaving the European Union was frequently associated with the idea of “taking back control” of Britain’s borders and ending EU freedom of movement.

Brexit certainly changed migration.

EU migration declined substantially following the referendum and particularly following the end of free movement.

But that did not mean overall migration simply disappeared.

Instead, the composition of migration changed dramatically.

The Migration Observatory reports that after Brexit, migration from non-EU countries increased considerably while EU migration declined. It notes that unusually high levels of migration during the early post-Brexit years were driven predominantly by non-EU migration.

Official ONS figures also show that non-EU migration became the principal driver of migration following the introduction of the post-Brexit immigration system.

Net migration subsequently fell substantially again, but the experience demonstrates an important lesson:

Leaving the European Union did not automatically mean low immigration.

It changed who was migrating to Britain and the legal mechanisms through which they arrived.

The UK Government already had, and continues to have, responsibility for substantial areas of immigration policy.

Therefore, blaming EU membership alone for Britain’s wider migration pressures was always an oversimplification.

Politicians Should Learn From What Happened

Whatever someone’s position on Brexit, there should surely be one point on which reasonable people can agree:

Major constitutional decisions require better public information and better political leadership.

Politicians should not simply hand difficult questions back to voters because those questions are politically uncomfortable.

Elected representatives are supposed to study the evidence.
They should commission economic analysis.
They should listen to businesses.
They should examine employment consequences.
They should consider national security.
They should consult constitutional lawyers.
They should assess migration.
They should examine trade figures.
They should consider Britain’s relationship with Europe in the context of global instability.
And then they should govern.

That is the responsibility that comes with parliamentary office.

Rejoining the EU Would Not Simply Reverse Brexit

There is another misconception that should be addressed.

Britain cannot simply announce that Brexit has been cancelled and return to its previous EU membership arrangements.

The UK is now legally a third country.

If Britain ultimately decided to seek EU membership again, it would have to pursue accession under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union.

Article 49 provides that a European state meeting the relevant EU values may apply for membership. The application involves the Council, European Commission and European Parliament, and ultimately requires agreement between the applicant state and the existing EU Member States, with ratification in accordance with their constitutional requirements.

In other words:

Britain cannot unilaterally reverse Brexit.

Rejoining would require negotiation.

The UK would also be negotiating as an applicant rather than returning automatically under precisely the arrangements it enjoyed before Brexit.

That reality makes serious parliamentary examination even more important.

There Are Options Between Brexit and Full EU Membership

The debate should also avoid presenting the future as another simplistic choice between two extremes.

Britain could potentially consider several relationships with Europe, including:

Closer regulatory alignment;
Improved trade arrangements;
A customs union;
Greater participation in EU programmes;
Enhanced security cooperation;
Closer arrangements concerning mobility;
Participation in elements of the single market;
Or ultimately an application for full EU membership.

Current political discussions have already explored a range of such possibilities rather than treating the question solely as “Brexit or Rejoin”.

That is precisely the type of discussion Parliament should be having.

The Public Should Be Consulted, But Consultation Is Not the Same as Abdicating Government

None of this means that voters should be ignored.

Public opinion matters enormously.
Political parties could make their proposed European policy explicit within a general election manifesto.
Citizens could vote accordingly.
Parliament could hold inquiries.
Businesses, trade unions, universities, charities, economists, lawyers and ordinary citizens could provide evidence.
Public consultations could be conducted.
Select committees could scrutinise proposals.

But consultation should not become an excuse for elected representatives to avoid responsibility.

There is a fundamental difference between listening to the public and asking millions of people to individually become constitutional lawyers, economists, trade negotiators and international relations specialists before placing a cross inside a box.

Governments Must Govern

Perhaps the biggest lesson from Brexit should therefore not simply concern whether leaving the EU was right or wrong.

The bigger lesson concerns how governments make decisions.

Britain elects Members of Parliament to represent the country.

Those representatives have access to evidence, specialists and institutions which most ordinary citizens simply do not have.

They are also extremely well paid for taking on that responsibility.

If the evidence eventually demonstrates that significantly closer European integration, or even EU membership, is in Britain’s national interest, Parliament should have the courage to debate the issue properly and make decisions based upon evidence rather than political fear.

Likewise, if the evidence supports remaining outside the EU, politicians should be capable of defending that decision.

What Britain should perhaps avoid is repeating the mistake of turning one of the most complicated legal, economic and constitutional questions imaginable into another political slogan followed by a binary vote.

Conclusion: Britain Needs Evidence, Not Another Political Civil War

Brexit cannot simply be erased.

History cannot be rewound, and any future relationship with the European Union must take account of Britain’s current legal position.

However, governments must also be capable of admitting when circumstances change.

Policies should never become permanent simply because reversing them is politically uncomfortable.

Businesses should review decisions.
Courts should reconsider legal interpretations.
Governments should amend legislation.
Policies should evolve when new evidence becomes available.
Democracy should allow countries to change direction too.

The question Britain now faces should therefore be broader than:

“Should we reverse Brexit?”

It should be:

“What relationship with Europe will best serve Britain’s economic prosperity, security, businesses, workers and future generations?”

That question deserves detailed research, independent analysis, parliamentary scrutiny and expert evidence.

It deserves more than another collection of campaign slogans.

And after the political turmoil created by the first referendum, Britain should think extremely carefully before allowing another binary referendum to determine such an extraordinarily complicated question.

Politicians are elected to make difficult decisions.

At some point, they must be prepared to make them.