I was speaking with some folks a little while ago about the new EU entry/exit sytem (EES) that is causing some headaches in European airports. One of my interlocutors was adamant that this was a vital issue that would precipitate our rejoining the EU. To them, it was the obvious bit of evidence we needed that rejoining was the only credible option for the UK. Others of us in that conversation were less convinced.

First, whilst I don’t deny it is something of an issue, I struggle to reckon with it being the (or even a) priority issue. Clearly nobody would rather stand in queues longer than they need to do. It is every bit an annoyance. But the idea that a longer queue when you take a holiday is a primary reason to rejoin the EU – and it does seem to be a totemic piece of evidence waved around as the smoking gun in the case against leaving the EU – is as asinine as the claim that most people voted based on a figure on the side of a bus.

Second, it is worth noting that this is only an issue during peak times. Those who travel regularly outside of peak times have not reported any great delays. The issue is limited to holiday seasons. We are not discussing a permanent issue.

Third, despite the claims of many, it seems much of Europe is quite keen on the money they get from British tourism. Portugal, for example, is heavily reliant on it and Greece reckon us to be their highest tourist demographic. Whilst the EU have insisted on bringing in punitive border checks for Britons, Greece have simply suspended them and other countries have determined to set them aside if and when airports become busy. Portugal, Italy and Spain have all waved people through during peak times. Greece also report that they have seen an uptick in tourism as a result. It simply isn’t true when people say the deals on the table and the way things are must be worn because Britain needs Europe more than they need us. We do have some leverage and things do change in our favour when the alternative negatively impacts EU members states.

Fourth, we can’t overlook that this is a particular concern of those who are able to afford European holidays. It is primarily the preserve of those with money. This isn’t to say those with money shouldn’t have their views here, of course. But it is to note that the Brexit vote was significantly driven by the working classes and their concerns do not seem to be front and centre in many of these discussions.

Fifth, in a bid to resurrect his leadership of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer has just announced his plan to bring forward the nationalisation British Steel. As I mentioned here, this Starmer government have been nothing but incoherent. Not least, he has also started making his own noises about rejoining the EU. In exactly the same way as they have pushed for more people to become EV drivers and then decided to tax EVs with a pay-per-mile system and a value tax (EVs are generally higher list price) undercutting their stated aim, they are doing the same again. As noted here:

Under Article 106, the EU prohibits public monopolies exercising exclusive rights where this violates EU competition rules. The EU’s Court of Justice has interpreted Article 106 as giving private companies the right to argue before the national courts that services should continue to be open to private-sector competition. Nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed by the judiciary for their “necessity”. Thus the EU has given companies a legal right to run to court to scupper programmes of public ownership.

The EU insist that they are neutral on the concept of nationaised industries. However, the limits on state aid and the competition laws that ban monopolies i.e. fully nationaised industry do make it all but impossible. The Labour Party promising a renationalised railway and steelworks whilst simultaneously suggesting that we should rejoin the EU is symptomatic of their general incoherence. Labour would be better placed re-examining what our trading relationship to Europe should be rather than relitigating in/out. Mick Lynch articulates the point well in this discussion:

What the current EU member states’ approach to EES shows is that there are better arrangements to be done. There are legitimate arrangements with our European friends that would be much more mutually beneficially than the current settlement. These can be reached without subjecting ourselves over again to full membership of the EU.

Most Lexiteers like me are not particularly happy with the settlement we have received. There is a discussion to be had about our ongoing trading relationship with our European friends and there are all manner of areas of mutual cooperation worth discussing on defence, trade, visas and yes even border controls. But these can all be done without subjecting ourselves to EU laws, allowing ourselves to maintain our sovereignty so that where EU laws conflict with the elected UK government’s plans – especially where such plans are exceedingly popular amongst the electorate (such as renationalising the railways, for example) – we are not bound by them. Of course every relationship will involve compromise, give and take, but it is evient that a settlement can be reached that would be mutually beneficial to both partners. Such things that can be done if only a more coherent government could figure out what they want, seek to implement those things and not shoot themselves in the foot by undercutting their own policies.