Secession is a nasty business. Both Britain and South Carolina learned that lesson. Whereas the American member-state failed to secede from the U.S., Britain succeeded in seceding from the E.U. The parallelism presented here is no accident, for just as the U.S. federal system has been charactered by dual sovereignty—both the Union and the members having at least some governmental sovereignty—so too does the E.U.’s federal system. In deciding whether or not they want Britain to become an E.U. state again, the British ought to keep this fact in mind.
Calling states “members” makes no difference to the divided sovereignty; in neither the E.U. nor the U.S. are the states fully sovereign, and neither the E.U. nor the U.S. itself is fully sovereign at the expense of any sovereignty remaining in the so-called members (i.e., states). In contrast, to refer to countries that belong to an international organization such as NATO or the UN as “member-states” just compounds the category mistakes that have been oriented to the false assertion that the E.U. and U.S. are qualitatively different rather than of the same (empire-scale) level and political genus (modern federalism of dual sovereignty). Just as sovereign countries formed the E.U., such countries formed the U.S., which at first was nothing more than a military alliance, and then a confederation of sovereign countries, and finally, from 1789, a federal system characterized by dual sovereignty.
That feature of (early)
modern federalism was salient for the British voters who voted to secede from
the Union. In fact, their refusal to accept the E.U. having any governmental
sovereignty was hardly absent from their judgment to vote in favor of their
state seceding from the Union. Such a fundamental divide—between the actual sovereignty
held by the E.U. and the Euroskeptic denial that such sovereignty even exists—is
more important than other “pros” and “cons” that the British voters considered
in voting on secession. So it is unfortunate that after Britain seceded, the question
of whether the state should once again become a state has been dominated by “pros”
and “cons” without giving much attention to the more fundamental matter of sovereignty.
In late September, 2026, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham “told a Labour Party conference that he would present ‘options’” concerning the relationship between the former E.U. state and the European Union.[1] He told his group’s delegates, “We could stay as we are. We could look at what George Osborne has said about a customs union, we could look at what the Liberal Democrats said about the (EU) single market, or we could go all the way.”[2] He went on to say, “We have to look at what is doable and what would be the problem is (sic) and cons of each.”[3] That is to say, they would have to look at the problems associated with each option. Such a practical, piecemeal approach ignores the more fundamental problem that existed when Britain was state: namely, getting the E.U. itself wrong, meaning mis-categorizing it in its basic, or constitutional, law, as if it were, as the former prime minister, David Cameron once said, “a network to which Britain happens to belong.” International networks, or “blocs,” do not have supreme courts that can overrule state courts, a parliament whose representatives are elected by federal (i.e., E.U.) citizens, and an executive branch. Blocs do not have three branches of government that individually and together, constituting a government, have at least some sovereignty.
Fundamentally understanding what the E.U. is politically is incompatible with being in the Union. This incompatibility dwarfs the particular advantages and disadvantages of various options. That is to say, if Britain is to become a state in the Union again, acceptance of the dual sovereignty enshrined in the E.U.’s basic law should be requisite by the British government and a majority of the electorate voting in a referendum. A house divided cannot stand, especially if each state retains a veto in the European Council and the Council of Ministers; the UK could “enforce” its erroneous disavowal of any E.U. sovereignty by holding federal legislative and executive action hostage. Put another way, if a majority of the British, as well as the British legislature, approaches the E.U. as if it were an international organization or bloc, the E.U. would be executing a self-inflicted wound by allowing Britain’s accession as a state. Obviously, other options, such as a customs union, would be fine, but to be a state, the UK would need to accept the fact of dual sovereignty.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
