Skip to content
Sunday, 8 November 2026Vol. 1 · No. 1 · Price: one objection
PoliticsLeader · SatireObjection

Britain should not rejoin the EU but apply afresh as a new country with no account history

The prime minister's talk of rejoining assumes our old membership can simply be reactivated. Anyone who has tried to recover a dormant email account knows otherwise.

2 min readDisagreement: 3 out of 5, opposedWhat actually happened? ↓
Everyone else
Rejoiners call it overdue, Leavers call it betrayal, and Westminster agrees it will be a long, bumpy road through Brussels.
The Object Daily
Britain's original membership is too old to recover, and the only sensible course is to apply as a brand-new country with a clean history and a fresh password.

I disagree.

My objection is not to the destination, about which I hold no strong view this week, but to the verb. To rejoin assumes there is something to rejoin. Britain’s membership was opened in 1973, on an entirely different operating system, and closed at 11pm on 31 January 2020. In my experience of library cards, loyalty schemes and a building society passbook I last saw in 1998, accounts left dormant for nearly seven years are not paused. They are deleted.

Consider what reactivation would actually involve. Somebody in the Cabinet Office would have to locate the original login. The password was set in the early 1970s and almost certainly contained no special characters. The recovery address is a fax number. The security questions concern the name of our first pet, which was a cat that died in 2009, and the city in which we were born, which has since been substantially redeveloped.

Then comes verification. Brussels will send a six-digit code to the device on file, which is a BlackBerry in a drawer at the Department for Exiting the European Union, a department that itself no longer exists. The code expires after ten minutes. The drawer has been locked since 2020, and the key was handed to a facilities contractor whose contract was not renewed.

The cleaner course is to apply as a new country. A new country arrives with no legacy data, no rebate history, no browser cookies from 2016 and no saved drafts of anything. It may choose a fresh username. It may, for once in our national life, tick the box confirming that it has read the terms and conditions, and actually have read them.

I accept there is one difficulty. The application form, as I imagine it, ends with Question 14: Please describe, in no more than 200 words, what your country is for. This is precisely the Hotmail problem. Nobody can recover the account because nobody remembers what it was set up to do. I convened a working group of myself this morning to draft an answer, and the leading candidates were queuing, apologising and commentary on the weather, followed closely by having been a member before, which the form explicitly asks us not to mention.

Government insiders are reported to be warning that the prime minister should not expect a smooth ride. Of course he should not. Anyone who has ever clicked Forgot password? knows that the ride is never smooth, that the link leads to another link, and that the final page invites you to contact customer services by post.

I therefore propose that the government stop rejoining forthwith and instead register quietly as a new country, under a slightly different name, from a new email address. And when the form asks whether we have ever applied before, we should do what every Briton does at that question: tick no, and hope very much that the system does not check.

The Object Daily editorial board

The Object Daily Statistics OfficeFigures that could be trueDraft answers to Question 14: what is your country for?
  • Queuing31%
  • Apologising22%
  • Weather commentary18%
  • Asking what it's for15%
  • Having been in it before14%

No single purpose commands a majority, which in itself may be the answer.

Source: Working group of one, convened at the breakfast table, Sunday morning · Satire

Three further objections

  1. The reasonable one

    A brand-new applicant would have to meet every accession criterion from scratch and would lose any argument that its long prior membership counts for something, so the clean slate may be more expensive than the forgotten password.

  2. The bureaucratic one

    Under current guidance a change of national username would require a fresh Data Protection Impact Assessment, a twelve-week consultation and a new letterhead for every embassy, none of which has been budgeted for in this spending review.

  3. The absurd one

    The cat that died in 2009 is in fact still registered as the account's primary contact and would need to sign the application in person.

Satire. This article was written by AI from real news headlines. The opinions are invented and deliberately contrary. The Object Daily does not claim that any of this is true, wise or even reasonable. Our editorial standards.

  • brexit
  • european union
  • uk politics
  • andy burnham
Quote card: Everyone else: Rejoiners call it overdue, Leavers call it betrayal, and Westminster agrees it will be a long, bumpy road through Brussels. The Object Daily: Britain's original membership is too old to recover, and the only sensible course is to apply as a brand-new country with a clean history and a fresh password.

The quote card

Everyone else versus The Object Daily, ready to paste wherever people are agreeing with each other.

Share the quote card

We also disagree with