Resolved: The United Kingdom should rejoin the European Union.

The ledger after Brexit

Pro builds from the post-Brexit record: trade friction with the continent, weaker investment, labor shortages in key sectors, and less say over the rules that govern Europe anyway. The neatest part of the Pro case is that Britain now follows many EU rules as the price of market access without a vote on them, and rejoining turns rule-taking back into rule-making. Con’s ledger stresses what leaving bought: an independent trade policy, regulatory divergence, control over migration policy, and freedom from a bloc whose direction Britain repeatedly resisted from inside.

The terms problem

Con’s sharpest structural argument is that rejoining wouldn’t mean returning to the old deal. The rebates and opt-outs Britain built up over decades are gone, and accession terms would plausibly include commitments the British public has never accepted. That moves the debate from "was Brexit good?" (ground Pro likes) to "is accession on realistic terms good?" (ground Con likes). Pro has to either defend the harder bargain or argue that the EU’s strategic interest in a British return buys flexibility.

Democracy cuts both ways

Both teams reach for democratic legitimacy. Con says a referendum decided this, and elite re-runs of settled votes erode trust. Pro says democracies are allowed to change their minds, especially when the original decision was sold on claims that didn’t hold up. The stronger version of each argument engages the other. Pro should build a fresh referendum into its advocacy, and Con should explain what changed circumstances would legitimately reopen the question, or it risks defending a permanent lock-in.