Should the UK rejoin the EU?

no. not so soon after leaving.
this is the problem. it's not so easy to just leave and rejoin the eu as the ordinary person might think.
'Not only do you have to comply with entry requirements on political and economic capacity to manage the effects of membership, but you also have to get the explicit approval of all existing member states and of the European Parliament.
'None of that is a given.
'As times passes, the UK is diverging from EU standards. Moreover, as a new applicant the UK would be obliged to commit to being part of those bits of the EU that it used to have opt-outs on, like the Euro, Schengen and various bits of justice and home affairs.'
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/five-reasons-why-rejoining-the-eu-is-a-difficult-path-to-follow/
'There might also be concerns that the UK’s historic ‘awkwardness’ would persist, in terms of not playing along with general expectations of constructive behaviour and not using ‘Brussels’ as a scapegoat for unpopular political choices. The EU might well ask itself, does it need another member that causes difficulties?'

This latest response is a mixture of diatribe, paralogism and sophistry, exacerbated by the occasional use of puerile language. (What exactly do you mean by, "ikr, who'da thunk?")
You still have not addressed the issues raised in Reply 65, which you chose to quote in Reply 75, nor have you offered any arguments in support of your assertion that the EU is "a far better proposition than what we currently have, despite its failings".
Your criticism of my post at Reply 29 focuses almost entirely on the opening sentence, which you have taken out of context. You ignore the second sentence, which qualifies the first and endows it with the meaning that the rest of that post, and subsequent posts, clearly conveys (See, in particular, Reply 33):
"The question would seem to be based on the assumption that all is well with the EU, which clearly it is not. Brexit may or may not have been the right decision, but it is done."
I never said, nor did I intend to say, that everyone who favours the UK rejoining the EU is unaware of its shortcomings (though some undoubtedly are), which is what you are trying to imply. It is also worth repeating that whatever meaning one chooses to attribute to the first sentence, it neither relates to a basic concept nor is it remotely a central issue in the debate (see Reply 76).
I readily agree with you, and others, that the economic impact of the Johnson administration's Brexit deal has been largely negative but you have chosen to ignore the fact that we are discussing rejoining the EU after already having left, not whether we should have left in the first place - a point that I have emphasised a number of times, but which you have not acknowledged.
You appear to ignore the political, constitutional and logistical issues that need to be considered when weighing up whether it is either feasible or desirable to rejoin. Other contributors have touched upon these (see, for example Reply 10 and Reply 73) and, as far as I am aware, you have not taken issue with what they had to say.
Finally, you appear to have intentionally or inadvertently misquoted me - and not for the first time. I did not say: "it makes perfect sense to remind those taking part in the debate that the EU has problems", to which you added a sarcastic comment. What I actually said was: "it makes perfect sense to remind those taking part in the debate that the EU has many deep-seated problems that are only likely to worsen as it expands to absorb more states that are economically weak and politically unstable." Clearly, the second part of my sentence gives added meaning to the first.
Once again, I encourage you to engage constructively and refrain from being merely disputatious or belligerent. From now on, to avoid stalling the debate, unless I detect a change in both tone and substance I shall reply to any of your future responses by referring back to previous posts.

Looking back at the early stages of this thread it is a pity that your post here has not received greater attention as it is arguably the single most valuable contribution to the debate so far. All the more so in light of the way in which the thread has developed, as you have drawn a sharp distinction between the arguments for and against leaving the EU and the arguments pertaining to the idea of rejoining.
In addition to your very pertinent extracts from Professor Simon Usherwood's article, it is worth noting the following:
"Certainly, 60% of people think that Brexit was a bad idea and that if asked the same question as in the 2016 referendum they would now vote to remain, a marked increase since the broadly even split which lasted until 2021. This majority for ‘Remain’ that has existed since late 2021 across a poll of polls has now widened to 56%.

It is quite understandable that given the undoubted negative impacts of the Johnson administration's version of Brexit, particularly in the economic sphere, the political, constitutional and logistical aspects of rejoining are sometimes brushed aside. But Professor Usherwood offers a very astute note of caution:
"Even if economic modelling suggests that EU membership would remove some long-term costs to the UK, those would only come after another period of uncertainty about whether the whole project would come off, followed by transition and adjustment. Other policy options such as major investment in rebalancing regional inequalities or a programme of housebuilding might produce quicker and less politically painful effects."
The key point I have been making in this thread is that the case for rejoining the EU in its current form is more likely to diminish rather than gather momentum as the UK adjusts to life outside the EU, and as the EU's existing stresses and strains increase.
This is not to belittle the importance of seeking closer economic ties with our European trading partners. Far from it. But that does not necessarily entail rejoining an organisation in dire need of reform. If reform is eventually embraced, or occurs through political or economic necessity, that might be the time to reconsider - provided that the outcome is something closer to the model of the European Economic Community that the UK joined in 1973.
In the meantime, it pays to observe what happens over the next few years as several states with weak economies, low living standards and a history of political tensions and instability are invited to progress towards EU accession.

...
This is not to belittle the importance of seeking closer economic ties with our European trading partners. Far from it. But that does not necessarily entail rejoining an organisation in dire need of reform. If reform is eventually embraced, or occurs through political or economic necessity, that might be the time to reconsider - provided that the outcome is something closer to the model of the European Economic Community that the UK joined in 1973.
In the meantime, it pays to observe what happens over the next few years as several states with weak economies, low living standards and a history of political tensions and instability are invited to progress towards EU accession.

This thread is called "should we rejoin the EU", not "would it be difficult to rejoin the EU".
Just because you don't like a response to your posts, doesn't mean you should ignore it.
It is interest that you still haven't been able to come up with any actual benefits from Brexit. The damage it has caused is undeniable.
"I never said, nor did I intend to say, that everyone who favours the UK rejoining the EU is unaware of its shortcomings"
That is what "The question would seem to be based on the assumption that all is well with the EU" implies.
"Brexit may or may not have been the right decision, but it is done."
Top argument there. I guess we shouldn't ever try to reverse bad decisions?
What are the "the political, constitutional and logistical issues" than make rejoining the EU a bad idea?
"I did not say: "it makes perfect sense to remind those taking part in the debate that the EU has problems", to which you added a sarcastic comment. What I actually said was: "it makes perfect sense to remind those taking part in the debate that the EU has many deep-seated problems that are only likely to worsen as it expands to absorb more states that are economically weak and politically unstable." Clearly, the second part of my sentence gives added meaning to the first."
My paraphrasing did not change the meaning of your argument. I merely removed some questionable opinion.
Ironically, it seems that you are the one here who is basing their position on a blinkered and partisan view of the EU while ignoring the issue at hand.

You should seriously include a tl;dr in your posts. I'll do one for you. Feel free to C&P.
Brexit has been a political, economic and social failure and the benefits of rejoining the EU in some fashion are obvious, as is public support for it. However, it would likely be a difficult and lengthy process.
Also, the EU is not perfect.
You're welcome.

I guess to link the last two points, the uk was fairly widely regarded as the sick man of europe when it joined in the 70s and the comments about a history of political tensions, instability, ... are equally as applicable to the uk. So the eu has a long history of inviting states with weaker economies, lower living standards to join. Its not a new thing yet its growth/living standards has been fairly constant.
Since leaving, truss, johnson, ... seemed to have similar chancer attitudes and some sort of eu counterweight would have been preferable. Starmer seems to be doing a somewhat mixed job at the moment, but given the economic and political conditions, its probably about as good as can be expected. As for farage/reform (there is a non-zero chance of them getting in next time), I guess the durham miners statement about why theyre not invited sums it up
https://www.durhamminers.org/council_elections_2025
Not surprisingly, some of the points/values they make are european values.
Like leaving, any transition back to the eu would take a few years. Does the eu need reform (not the party), every organisation does. For me it would be a price worth paying compared to to the (lack of) stewardship of truss, johnson, farage(?) - so back to the political instability in the uk and the economic problems it causes.

This post is slightly more constructive in tone and substance and so deserves a partial response.
'This thread is called "should we rejoin the EU", not "would it be difficult to rejoin the EU".'
Agreed. But the the question of whether or not we should rejoin needs to take account of the difficulties as well as any potential benefits. See Reply 80.
'I guess we shouldn't ever try to reverse bad decisions?'
That would depend on whether trying to reverse the bad decision would be likely to make things better or worse. See Reply 10 and Reply 80.
'"I never said, nor did I intend to say, that everyone who favours the UK rejoining the EU is unaware of its shortcomings"That is what "The question would seem to be based on the assumption that all is well with the EU" implies.'
No, that is the interpretation that you placed upon it because you took the sentence out of context. See Reply 79 and my comment below on academic misconduct.
'What are the "the political, constitutional and logistical issues" than [sic] make rejoining the EU a bad idea?'
See Reply 10, Reply 33 and Reply 80.
"I did not say: "it makes perfect sense to remind those taking part in the debate that the EU has problems", to which you added a sarcastic comment. What I actually said was: "it makes perfect sense to remind those taking part in the debate that the EU has many deep-seated problems that are only likely to worsen as it expands to absorb more states that are economically weak and politically unstable." Clearly, the second part of my sentence gives added meaning to the first."
My paraphrasing did not change the meaning of your argument. I merely removed some questionable opinion.
You appear to admit that you have intentionally misquoted me in order try and prove a point. If this were anything other than a student debating forum you would be guilty of academic misconduct. Misquoting includes:

Thank you, however, for taking a rather more conciliatory tone. We do not need to agree. We only need to to acknowledge that there are differences of opinion that are being aired in the debate.
In your final comment you said:
"Ironically, it seems that you are the one here who is basing their position on a blinkered and partisan view of the EU while ignoring the issue at hand."
I doubt that anyone could seriously argue that I am ignoring the issue at hand!
It is not true to say that I have a blinkered and partisan view of the EU. I am simply questioning whether rejoining the EU in its current form is either feasible or desirable. If the EU were to revert to being a trading bloc without a commitment to economic and monetary union and with the option of a partial derogation from freedom of movement then the case for rejoining would garner much more widespread support - even from some "Brexiteers".

"the question of whether or not we should rejoin needs to take account of the difficulties as well as any potential benefits"
Why?
Many beneficial things are difficult, but we do them anyway - because they are beneficial. I find the idea that we should only be attempting the easy and harmful to be somewhat shortsighted.
I note you are still steadfastly refusing to provide examples of any Brexit benefits.
So, to sum up - Brexit was bad. Rejoining will be better but you would oppose that because it might be more difficult than not rejoining.

Thank you again for engaging in a more constructive manner.
I respect your point of view but let me give you an alternative summary. Rejoining would not only be more difficult than not rejoining, it might also not be better (see Reply 10, Reply 33 and Reply 80).
I am not a "Brexiteer". I voted to remain in the 2016 referendum. I did so without much enthusiasm but we had the opt-outs and I believed that the disruption involved in leaving would outweigh any potential benefits, at least in the short to medium term. So it has proved.
However, as the then PM David Cameron said, the British people chose a different path. If we were to consider rejoining, it would have to be a very different EU to the one we have now. I seriously doubt whether a referendum on rejoining would succeed if it meant accepting the principles embodied in the Maastricht Treaty and the prospect of yet further enlargement.
We have left. We should now make the best of the longer-term opportunities that might emerge, while seeking closer ties to the EU in specific ways that are to our mutual advantage. (To be fair, that is the position of the current Labour administration, which - correct me if I'm wrong - you are inclined to support). If the EU reforms and the option of associate membership along the lines of the old EEC were available, that might be a different proposition. But there is no sign of that, at present.

agree with you here, and thank you for reading my earlier source; it's a rarity indeed (which is why i've now mostly resorted to sources available upon request. cba especially when others regularly make claims they cannot back up).
(unbeknownst to me at the time of posting), even the government mentioned the issues initially addressed at comment #10 in its research briefing – Debate on the UK applying to join the European Union. a response in anticipation of a debate in westminster hall on 'rejoining' the eu and a petition submitted to them on the subject. it is relevant, so why should it not discussed here?
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0067/
another point in the link above is that a future uk gov might seek to take the uk out again. the tories, for example, have said they would oppose new uk-eu agreements that involve an obligation for the uk to align with eu laws or give jurisdiction to the Court of Justice of the EU, and that a future conservative gov would not be bound by a 'bad Labour deal' (parliamentary sovereignty and all). personally don't see tories back in power next election given its massive failures on brexit, immigration, prisons and housing, and healthcare reform, but labour will not be around forever. we cannot have one foot in and one out the door all the time when it comes to eu membership; it's bad for uk political/economic stability and from the eu's perspective it would be bad for its operations.
i do not have a laptop so alas don't expect too much from me. just throwing this out there as surely it takes more consideration on what one is actually agreeing to, as opposed to their ideals, when they say 'yes we should/shouldn't join'. surely we have witnessed the consequences of naivety and misconceptions in 2016? perhaps a referendum atm (not that it's needed with parliamentary sovereignty) would be a mistake, and why joining is not suggested by labour when no government can guarantee a subsequent join. like, imagine the public uproar if the majority votes 'yes', then some eu member state vetoes a hard-no, like an ex-wife that doesn't trust her ex after he dumped her ass for his mid-life crisis but wants her back after realising the grass isn't always greener.

Should the UK rejoin the EU?

tbh rejoinin would prob be nice for trade & travel but it's not gonna happen anytime soon. we literally just left & got to sort our own mess first. maybe in like a decade w/ a proper referendum if ppl rly want it. atm its just politicos arguin about pride. just get on w/ life & stop blamin random ppl