Tracy Rolfe: Do you think the UK will eventually rejoin the EU? If so, when and how do you think it will happen?

Yes, unless the EU does actually collapse as the Daily Express is hoping, I think rejoining is inevitable. The vast majority of opposition to EU membership is loaded into older people and it’s not a view that becomes more prevalent as you get older, as some political issues do. This is part of a very specific generation of people. So, if nothing else, as time passes, the electorate becomes more pro-EU, the politicians personally linked with Brexit disappear from the scene, and the new leaders have no baggage, we will eventually see the benefits.

However, I’m not a fan of achieving political change through a patient game of waiting for millions of people to die off, so I’d rather we pressed the issue more quickly. Peter Mandelson recently said that he thought we might be getting ready to apply in about ten years. I certainly think that if Labour are to achieve their economic aims, then achieving more growth will have to include breaking down the most obvious trade barriers.

Valerie Chaplin : What do you think of Keir Starmer’s attitude towards Brexit and his slogan ‘Make Brexit Work’?

First of all, Keir Starmer was the most recognisable voice against Brexit as far as the public were concerned. He did not get kicked in the head by a horse when he became Labour leader. His change of position reflected the change in our EU status. Not that his real beliefs on EU membership matter, more what his Government will do.

The “Make Brexit Work” slogan is as meaningless as any other political slogan. It can simply mean that he is going to get our economy in shape outside the EU. But, of course, it will always be hampered by trade barriers as a result of being outside the SM and CU. What Starmer is trying to agree with the EU in practice actually represents the steps which would need to be taken if we rejoined at least the single market. As such, I see no difference between his policies and the policies of someone who was openly talking about joining the SM or EU proper. Of course, he might not achieve them, but we don’t qualify to join the SM or EU right now anyway.

Lisa Burton : What do you think of Boris Johnson’s comments in recent interviews regarding Brexit, particularly it ‘being an argument he wanted to win’ and his continuing blame game?

We know that the real reason Boris Johnson championed Brexit was for political power. He did not believe that he could become Conservative leader, and therefore Prime Minister, without the support of Tory MPs described by a former party chair as ‘swivel eyed loons.’ They wanted Brexit, so he thought that if he became the banner bearer for Brexit, he could win their support.

It’s believed that he did not expect the leave campaign to win, and so did not think he would actually have to deal with the consequences – simply benefit from the support of Brexiteers when David Cameron stepped down, which he was going to do during the second Parliament anyway.

It’s been clear throughout that Boris Johnson understands nothing about the EU, the single market, the customs union or even what a non-tariff barrier actually is. We’ve also seen that he simply does or says whatever he thinks he needs to do in order to deal with tricky problems in the short term with no thought for the long term. So, whatever Boris Johnson decides to say was his reasoning for getting behind Brexit, it was only ever a device to have the easiest possible path to becoming Prime Minister.

Michael Soffe : Earlier in the year you quoted Tory MP Paul Scully as saying a new referendum on Brexit would result in the vote being reversed. Do you believe there will be a further referendum and if so, presumably way down the road? How do we convince the public that we need one?

I believe that we will apply to rejoin the EU, and a referendum is the only credible way of doing that now. I would suggest that in order to maximise the chances of success, we actually have two referenda included in the legislation, as we should have done before. We know that issues like currency will be a big worry for people, but that it’s also possible to negotiate opt-outs, though we can’t expect everything we had before.

So, we should have one referendum which only gives the Government the authority to apply for membership, and then a second referendum, once the terms are agreed, which the public use to give final approval.

But, to persuade the public, we need them to realise that Brexit trade barriers are the cause of problems like getting NHS medicines and staff, food which is less fresh, higher costs of goods and some services. So, we need an official economic assessment of being outside the EU/SM/CU.

Mike Fitzgerald : If you were in a position of power, what would be your approach to a “reset with the EU”? And do you think a ‘reset’ can lay foundations for a future rejoin?

So, we have to be mindful of two things when it comes to closer moves to the EU. The first is that a significant number of key voters are still not convinced Brexit is bad, and the second is that the Conservatives will loudly proclaim that they will reverse any major alignment with the EU that Labour implements.

So, although I think my approach would be a bit different to Starmer’s, I don’t think it would be very far away. When EU policy experts criticise Labour’s moves it tends to be along the lines of being clear about what they want from the EU. We know Labour wants a veterinary deal, mutual recognition of qualifications and a deal that sounds very like freedom of movement for performers. But Labour haven’t been clear about the precise details, or what they think we can agree to give the EU in return.

So, I would say that I think what I would do in power is to have those detailed proposals worked out as a priority so that there was the basis for discussion. I would also have bitten their hand off at the prospect of re-joining Erasmus, because nobody wanted us to leave.

Lawrence Renaudon Smith : There is a lot of discussion about university students and Erasmus etc., but I hear very little about the effect Brexit is having on the attitudes and education of schoolchildren. Are they becoming more inward-looking and nativist due to Brexit? Gen Z are pro-EU membership, but are Gen Alpha going to see other Europeans as “the foreigners”? 

I’m not a sociologist, but I don’t think the next generation will be anti-EU. Anti-EU sentiment worked largely on people who were lied to on the basis that bad things in the country were blamed on the EU. This doesn’t work on a generation entering adulthood outside the EU. I would also say Brexit sentiment worked well on many older people because of classic nostalgia. You think things were better when you were young and ascribe it to society being better at the time. In reality, it’s because you were young, fit and healthy, and didn’t have to grunt every time you got out of a chair.

Again, this doesn’t really work on the youngest because their young, fit and healthy times are in the Brexit years. I gather the younger generation use the word Brexit to mean something that’s been cocked up. I think they’ll be pro-EU on balance.

Helen Johnston : Most recent surveys show that Labour Party members and voters believe Brexit was wrong for the country and would like to see more progress on the UK moving closer to Europe. Do you get the impression that the Labour leadership is listening to its grassroots at all, e.g. at the recent party conference?

So, Labour are listening to the grassroots, but we vote for them even when they’re losing. They have to listen more closely to key swing voters and, as a Labour member, I want them to do that. But people also misrepresent polls as well. A clear majority do believe Brexit was wrong, but that’s not the same as wanting a Government to say we will rejoin.

We know that more people would like to rejoin than stay out, but when you ask even if that means adopting the euro, all of a sudden, the answer goes the other way. The issue is also less salient for pro-EU voters than pro-Brexit voters. Finally, the moment we ask to join the SM or EU, the Conservatives will say they would scrap it when they come back to power. So, the EU will not waste its time when it has so many other priorities.

We will know when the public really wants back in the EU because the Conservatives will have to start talking about it seriously. There are currently zero Conservative MPs doing so. There was Tobias Elwood in the last Parliament, standing alone, but he’s gone now.

Fi Cooper : What do you think about the future of farming and fishing if Labour continues to refuse to join the CU and SM?

Fishing and farming both seem to have very different attitudes towards Brexit. If reports are to believed, there was overwhelming support for a hard Brexit from fishermen, who are now moaning that they have been screwed over, and yet they still insist that the hard Brexit is the right decision. I don’t know what you can do to help an industry that doesn’t understand that it was never going to get access to the EU market (where most British caught fish goes) whilst denying access to EU fishing vessels.

Farming is different, because many farmers did understand the damage that would be caused and, I think, welcome any moves that ease trade barriers, including rejoining. They will also be keen on the veterinary agreement, if the Government can arrange it.

There is also currently a risk that, without proper standards controls, which we still do not have, that we are at a higher than acceptable risk of importing a disease which could devastate whole sections of our farming industry.

But without help, there’s a worry they will have to scale back, meaning we are forced to import yet more food, or farm more intensively.

Lisa Burton : The recent riots were difficult to watch, but also not unexpected, considering certain media reporting and the political environment for the past few years, particularly since Brexit. Will Labour consider press reform going forward, and how will the government respond to reform UK MPs intent on stirring up further division?

Stella Creasey :My community was directly affected by the threat of violence. We didn’t have any violence, but we did take to the streets as a community, and stood round our local mosques. We stood together because people were so divided, and this didn’t happen in a vacuum. For some time now, I’ve been very worried about the rise of the far right and of far-right rhetoric, both online and offline. It’s been shaping a number of debates locally, and it was an incredibly scary time. I’m very proud to represent a very diverse community. I’m very proud of the fact that when that pressure came, people were very clear that it was not welcome here, but acutely conscious that we don’t want to get to the point where these things are happening in the first place.

It’s not that we should simply be proud that if put under pressure in the UK, people reject this type of politics. We shouldn’t get to the point where the pressure is coming in the first place. With that in mind, one of the conversations I’ve been having with people for some time, as Chair of the Labour Movement for Europe (LME) is that you are talking about what President Trump is doing. You’re talking about who he’s talking to in British politics. But have you seen what’s happening in Europe? Have you seen what’s happening with Orban, with Le Pen, with Meloni, and what’s happening in France?

I am very concerned that the left has been complacent about the idea that far right extremism, Islamophobia, racism, wouldn’t take seed in our political discourse. For too long, the left has that said these are extremes, just ignore them, don’t platform them. We have to confront them. But I don’t think this is about press reform, though there are other reasons why we need to talk about press reform.

The reason my community was put under pressure was because somebody circulated via WhatsApp a list of 60 immigration lawyers that were going to be targeted next. That is not the traditional print media, or even a forum that has some modicum of regulation.

I’m not suggesting that there isn’t an issue about press reform that we need to address. I know people have very great concerns about GB news, for example, and its impartiality. I think there are questions about where you blur the line between opinion and fact, and that’s online and offline. It’s to recognize that the way in which the far right is organizing is not through traditional forums and media. So that debate, that discourse, is late to the mainstream media rather than generating the mainstream media. What do I mean by that? I mean it’s as much as in your local Facebook groups. It’s in the Telegram groups. It’s in the WhatsApp messages that calls for a necessary different response.

If we load this solely onto press reform, I fear we will be too late. We’ll be too late in calling for a defense of free speech that recognizes if 50% of the conversation is terrified, because there is violence, because there is intimidation, because there is this constant drumbeat that whatever the problem is, the answer is, immigration is the issue? Actually, we’re not getting to the source of it, and we’re not challenging where that’s coming into modern political discourse. And I say that as somebody who now spends more of her time in WhatsApp groups with local residents than actually on even Twitter/X, I mean, X feels, you know, 10 years ago now, for me now.

A separate issue is regarding the role of politicians and the questions of standards. And I think there are some very interesting questions about our roles and our responsibilities. In terms of leadership of that debate, I have called for a national conversation about accountability for all of us. We all have to be accountable for what we are doing, to challenge the rhetoric, to challenge those ideas. Hope not Hate have got some very interesting research on this that is also an accountability for all MPs of all elected professions. I am somebody who has already debated, discussed and disagreed with the Reform MPs in Parliament, but I will hold them to the same standards that I will hold politicians in all political parties for the consequences of their actions, as I expect myself to be held.

Clarissa Killwick :Thanks to Brexit, I, for a number of years, lost my vote, but I was able to vote again in the UK. In the past, Labour were not in favor of lifting the 15 year rule for overseas voters. So has there been a change of heart now, or are we at risk of losing this important right again?

Stella Creasey : The absolute honest truth is, I suspect, that the debate around electoral reform in this country will be more rooted in wondering about electoral registration and about voter ID than the 15-year rule. We saw quite a marked impact on certain groups in society about their ability to take part, and I know the Electoral Commission is looking at that.

I think we have to see what the Electoral Commission comes back with in terms of whether or not this is a practical solution. I understand and appreciate what you’re saying about you had a vote. It would be remiss of me not to say I want to see what the Electoral Commission says first.

Steve Wilson : Do you believe proportional representation would be a prerequisite for rejoining the Single Market, the Customs Union and/or the EU and what’s the position of the Labour Movement for Europe on that particular subject?

Stella Creasey : As to whether proportional representation will be a prerequisite with the EU in order to rejoin the single market, or would be part of the negotiating discussion, I’m not aware of any examples in which the electoral system being used has been part of the negotiations, e.g. in discussions that other countries taking part in the accession process are having.

As for the position of LME, we are an affiliate organization, so we don’t take a particular position on policies. I can tell you what my position as the national chair is and say, I have always campaigned for electoral reform, not because I think it makes a single person vote, but because I think it is the right thing to do. I prefer AV+ because I do think the constituency link is important in our politics, especially with devolution, and I’ve always voted for electoral reform policies within the political process.

I also don’t think you can single out just the voting system. I think you’ve got a broader question about how you win the argument. I don’t think you can make Brexit work. We’ve always been clear about that. We can, we do think that you can resolve quite a lot of the problems that it has created in the first instance, and that should be the priority. We are around the edges of the single market, and we are affected by the single market. So, I always think it’s a bit of a canard to say that we’ve completely left it in the same way that inevitably, the trading decisions made in Europe affect what we can do here, because we are interconnected. You know, you can fight many things in life, but you can’t really fight geography. It’s just a thing.

The British public are far ahead of the political debate. They’ve moved on in 2016 and 2019 and they are also very clear that this was a democratic decision. As a result, you would need some kind of democratic moment to change it substantially. That doesn’t mean that that might not happen. Nobody can rule out anything, if we’ve learned anything in the last couple of years of politics, that things go up and down in all sorts of ways you never expected, not least Liz Truss becoming Prime Minister.

But it does mean that we face a very hard choice. What do you focus on? I talk to the businesses who can’t import things into the UK anymore, who are sitting with lorry loads of food sat in Calais, the people who are missing out on school trips, the businesses thinking about where they invest. They haven’t got the seven or eight years of negotiation time and a referendum that we need. What we have to ruthlessly do as people who recognize the damage that Brexit has done is work out how we can save what is essentially already on fire.

I’m very passionate about the Pan European Mediterranean convention, so passionate it probably puts people to sleep, frankly. But that is something I think we could negotiate to be part of, again, relatively quickly. Talk to the people in the Ukraine – they are on a fast track. That’s still a 7-8 year process. British businesses, British workers, do not have that length of time before damage that Brexit has done is going to be so great, we’ll never be able to do anything about it.

But I also think we do have to respect and recognize that if you are the European Union, you know, I would say Brexit is like the terrible man your aunt married 20 years ago, and you put up with him at Christmas every single year, and finally she divorced him. You know, you’re not going to invite him round for Easter cake, anytime soon. We have to respect and recognize just how much we trashed our status, the goodwill, the general sense that the UK was somebody you want to work with through Brexit, and the idea that we could very quickly get the time and energy and effort that our European partners would require for any sort of rejoin effort, I just think it’s a bit disrespectful to them. It is so important to me that we try and save what we can save, because any future conversation will be harmed by what is lost.

One of the things I worry about is if we spend our time still prosecuting the debates of 2016 and 2019 –  that means we’re not talking about what is possible in 2024, so we’re not giving people hope that you can actually sort some of these problems out. You can sort out the madness at the border, you can sort outwhat happens with Erasmus, you can sort out youth mobility. I believe that, I wouldn’t be doing this role if I didn’t.

We have to be really clear about the timescales, because we owe it to our European counterparts to recognize we’ve got a lot of ground to make up with them. That’s what’s really good about what the Government is doing right now. They are going round and proving not just that they’re not Liz Truss – which I know sounds like quite a low threshold – but that they are actually people you want to work with, that they get the concept of mutual interest, that they understand we’re asking a lot for people to pay us attention again because, we have been that awful man your aunt married.

Helen Johnston : All the recent surveys say that Labour voters and members overwhelmingly believe Brexit was a mistake and would like to see it reversed. Will the leadership come under pressure at the Labour Party Conference this autumn from grassroots members?

Stella Creasey : If you’re a member of the LME, you’re just about to get an email about our conference rally – we’ve got some really big hitters coming to speak, including Nick Thomas-Symonds, the person doing the negotiations with Europe. We’ve also got the new chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Emily Thornberry, who’s going to play an absolutely key role, because of a challenge in Parliament, since the European Scrutiny Committee has been disbanded. Sunday evening at conference, we have got a big, serious rally, which we are organizing to make sure that discussion of Europe is part and parcel of what goes on in the Labour movement.

If you join the LME, you can help strengthen my ability to keep those debates going and keep the discussions happening at a grassroots level. But just to blow our trumpet a little bit, there are now more LME parliamentarians than there are Conservative parliamentarians in Parliament. We are affiliated – formerly affiliated. If you’re a Labour Party member, you’ll know how serious this is to over half the constituencies across the country. We’ve got 1000s of members now. So that shows there is the interest and appetite. Absolutely, conference is a key event. That’s why we’re doing this rally. We haven’t been able to be upfront because of the election. It completely kiboshed the conference motion process for us to do a conference motion.

There’s an opportunity, if you are going to be in Liverpool, to show how serious you think this is, and that that relationship is there. And I cannot tell you how different that is to say a year and a half ago. It sometimes felt a bit of a lonely endeavor to be the person saying, can we talk about this? And people across the political spectrum felt wrung out. They felt so frustrated, so emotionally drained by the discussion. I understand why people didn’t want to have it. I just think we do need to do that now, and that is happening

Ruth Woodhouse : Keir Starmer has repeatedly stated, there will be no return to the single market, Customs Union or freedom of movement. Do you not believe that in an ever-changing world and political landscape, it is a mistake to rule out anything? 

Stella Creasey: I say we should absolutely look at all options, including the timelines. My concern about things like the Customs Union and the Single Market is the timeline, because I think of small businesses in my constituency who just said the point about Brexit for them is paperwork, and can they hold on for another 18 months? Possibly. Could they hold on for five years? No, that’s what I’m really worried about.

So, it’s a question for me. I think it’s right to look at everything. That’s why, for example, I have challenged the Labour Party to look again at the idea of youth mobility, because whilst what I thought the European Commission came up with wouldn’t work for us, because it wasn’t actually youth mobility – what it was was just one country. It didn’t include apprenticeships, for example, which I think is really important in all of this. The idea that there could be a scheme, I think, is something we should be exploring, and we’ll continue to have that debate and discussion within the LME.

Anon : How do we persuade those that believe immigrants are the cause of all their problems, that the fault lies elsewhere? 

Stella Creasey :One of the things I feel really passionate about, if we say and do nothing else, as progressive people, we have to be clear that the problem is not immigrants. The problem is politicians. It is politicians failing to show that in a world that is so complicated and that changes so quickly.

We have lived through lots of very destabilizing events, and at every turn, there have been people on the left and right who have looked to find somebody to blame. The right is very effective at blaming, starting with immigrants. Then it moves on to trans people, to people who need welfare support, then women. The challenge with that blame culture, that politics can thrive in, is absolutely it might win you a vote at the ballot box, but it doesn’t win you the consent for the change that needs to happen. So yes, it is a frustration for me that we have come to a point where people blame immigration when they really should be blaming politicians for being so problem focused rather than solution focused.

I came into politics to change the world. I think change is possible, but I’ll be honest with you, I sat on the Council of Europe refugee and immigration committee and used to bang my head in frustration on the desk because the conversation was long on an analysis of why immigrants were causing problems, and short on how could we collaborate together to make sure it was possible to help people equally and not put a burden on anybody. That conversation is not just a challenge within Europe, and tackling the far right politics. It’s a problem across politics. It’s not okay for politicians to just to tell us who’s caused the problem – rather they must say what they’re going to do about it.

Update 13 Oct 2024 – video now available for viewing from our You Tube channel by clicking here.

Ruth Woodhouse : Last year Ed Davey said that people on the doorstep were not talking about Europe. Was this your experience when you were campaigning during the build up to the recent general election?

Yes, largely I would agree that it wasn’t really a key focus for constituents during the campaign. I don’t think people have stopped caring about it, but a combination of a general feeling that reversing the decision to leave the EU is not likely to be possible any time soon, and a tsunami of more pressing, or immediate concerns, put the issue of Europe much further to the back of the queue.

Constituents are struggling with the cost of living; with a complete lack of access to NHS dental care; with long delays getting appointments with GPs or long waits for operations; with overdevelopment and no commensurate increase in roads and infrastructure; with constant reductions in bus routes and bus frequency sometimes making it nearly impossible to get to work in our large, mostly rural constituency; with sewage polluting our rivers and coastline and influencing the tourist trade on which we rely heavily and many more issues that are very directly affecting them and their lives and finances. I would argue that the economic consequences of leaving the EU are also affecting everyone, but the cause and effect is less direct and much harder for people to see. 

It was raised with me by a few people who run businesses and are being stretched by the ridiculous amount of red tape involved in importing and exporting, or who have extra costs now because of the Brexit bureaucracy. 

Tracy Rolfe : Do you think that the UK will ultimately regain its EU membership? What is the roadmap and how long would it take?

As part of our manifesto pledges, the Lib Dems have set out a roadmap for fixing our broken relationship with Europe and, longer term, ultimately rejoining the EU, and we will do everything we can to push the Government towards this position. I like to hope that, if the Government is brave enough to have an honest conversation with the public about the economic consequences of leaving the EU, the public will eventually insist that rejoining must be a priority, and the political will to do so will follow. It’s very hard to anticipate how long this might take, but with the Lib Dems so much larger and stronger a voice in Westminster now, it’s perhaps a more achievable long-term goal than it was.

Our roadmap includes rebuilding the relationship; seeking to agree partnerships with EU agencies and programmes such as Erasmus Plus, scientific programmes and cooperation on defence, security and crime; negotiating veterinary and plant health agreements and mutual recognition agreements to deepen the trading relationship; and then seeking to rejoin the Single Market. 

Valerie Chaplin : Do you think any political party will be ready to be more vocal about Brexit at the next election, and can you see any party putting rejoin (whether the single market, customs union or EU) at the heart of their next manifesto?

At the moment, no, if I’m honest. There is a deep fear of returning to the incredibly divisive Brexit debate among the electorate and it would take a brave politician to stoke that fire. However, five years is a long time in politics, so who knows where we’ll be when the next election comes around. I think it would have to come from the public though and with every year that passes, the demographic changes, so we may see more pressure being put on politicians to be more vocal about it. 

I think the worst effects of Brexit were hidden by the pandemic which hit just after we left – so people haven’t associated many of the effects with Brexit itself. That might change as the pandemic fades into the past and people begin to see more clearly the effects of Brexit. 

Anon : Do you expect Nigel Farage and his far-right counterparts to cause as much disruption in London as they did in Brussels, and what can be done to curb their behaviour in the Commons (assuming they ever show up!)?

Having “worked” with Mr Farage and his counterparts during my time as an MEP, I can only assume that yes, he will do everything he can to cause disruption and division in Westminster. 

But it is important to remember that he is capitalising on, or manipulating, many extremely valid concerns that people have about the state of our economy and their own standard of living. The most effective way of taking the wind out of Mr Farage’s sails is to deliver real positive change for people during this term. The greater the problems people face, the more susceptible they are to efforts to make them blame “other” people for those problems. In reality, it is up to Government, not minority groups and vulnerable other people to fix the economic issues in Britain so that people are not struggling and therefore don’t need scapegoats. 

Farage will be hampered by Parliamentary rules which mean that, as a very small party in Parliament, he won’t get much speaking time in the House. I expect him to use the media as his platform, as he has always done so well. So, his ability to disrupt depends on how much airtime the media give him, as much as what he does in Parliament. 

Steve Wilson : Having done so well in the General Election, what’s next for the LibDems?

I think our primary focus over the next few years is to be an effective opposition to the Government. The Conservatives are currently mired in their own problems, not least their attempts to find a new leader and their problem with the rise of Reform – and whether they deal with that by further pandering to right-wing factions or by moderating their position. They are largely absent as a voice in Westminster at the moment – certainly a united one – while the Lib Dems are very much present and determined to hold the Government to account. 

There is a possibility that we could become the official opposition if the Conservatives continue to implode, but, as I said above, five years is a long time in politics… so watch this space! We have an extremely talented team with a lot of professional expertise in the ranks now, so I expect us to be a very strong voice in Parliament.

David Eldridge : The recent increase in minimum salary requirements has meant I’ve been banished from my country of birth unless I divorce my wife. Do you support the minimum salary requirement for British people to bring in their foreign spouses? If so, at what level should it be?

I am so sorry you are facing such an inhumane choice. I think the increased requirements are extremely damaging and unfair. They will have devastating consequences for many families like yours and will prevent many people – disproportionately those who are not in high-paying jobs – from being able to live with their loved ones. 

Our manifesto included a commitment to replacing the Conservatives’ arbitrary salary threshold with a more flexible merit-based system for work visas, working with employers to address specific needs as part of a long-term workforce strategy. We also committed to reversing the unfair increase to income thresholds for family visas, so that no more families are torn apart. 

We would like to see a comprehensive review of the immigration system, including considering the human rights implications of immigration policy, to ensure it is fair, humane, and fit for purpose, and doesn’t separate families or cause undue hardship.

Lisa Burton : Already, we are seeing an improvement in the tone and the frequency of Brexit being discussed in Parliament. Do you think this will lead to a more honest debate about the economic damage, which Labour is still shying away from?

I sincerely hope so. An honest discussion, and an honest and detailed presentation of the facts to the public, is long overdue. We can’t begin to find ways to try and mitigate the economic consequences of leaving the EU until we are prepared to fully identify, acknowledge, and name them. I will work as hard as I can over the coming years to ensure the Government changes its cautious narrative and is honest with the British public about the enormous damage leaving the EU has done our nation, not just economically, but also socially – for many people, and geo-politically. 

Stella Creasy MP

For the first time in its history, we are delighted to feature our first member of the House of Commons – Labour MP for Walthamstow, and Chair of the Labour Movement for Europe, Stella Creasy.

We had hoped to post Stella’s answers here as usual, but due to circumstances beyond her control Stella has proposed an alternative way forward to ensure that our members questions are answered.

Stella has kindly suggested a special webinar, hosted by our chair, Sue Wilson. The Zoom call (link to be supplied in due course), will take place on Thursday 19 September from 5.00 – 6.00 p.m. BST.

We are most grateful to Stella for making herself available for this very special online Bremainers Ask session and we hope you will join us.

Please register your interest in attending by email by Tuesday 17 September to allow for the administration of this event. Thank you.

Coming next month………Caroline Voaden MP

Caroline is the newly elected LibDem MP for South Devon, having previously served as MEP for S.W. England & Gibraltar and as leader of the LibDems in the European Parliament from 2019 to 2020. She has also worked as an international correspondent and sub-editor for Reuters news agency and as a freelance editor and writer. 

Please email any questions for Caroline to us no later than noon on Saturday 7 September.

 Nick Harvey – CEO European Movement UK

Pro-Europeans can view the election of the new Parliament and Government through either a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty prism. I prefer the former.

Yes, we would all have preferred Labour not to be elected with red lines drawn against the customs union, single market or ‘rejoin’ – though experts tell me those would barely have been feasible in the first term anyway.

 But we have seen the new PM totally reset the relationship with Europe at the Blenheim summit, the new Foreign Secretary start talks about an ambitious UK-EU security agreement, and the first King’s Speech signal an enabling bill to allow ‘dynamic alignment’ with evolving EU regulations.

It is a great start.

Beyond these, EMUK has a shopping list of things the new British Government could do in the next few years to rebuild relations with the EU – some unilaterally, some by negotiation, some by improving the 2020 deal – but none breaking their self-imposed red lines.

High priority is a veterinary/food deal, along with dropping Tory ideological objections to the ECJ and playing divide-and-rule between EU states. Revisiting citizens’ rights would help – easier access to UK universities and for agricultural workers, a youth mobility scheme and performers’ visas. Co-operation is needed on energy, crime and justice, medicines supply and critical raw materials. We should join the Pan-European Mediterranean Convention.

We also need greater regulatory alignment and to avoid divergence by mirroring VAT and carbon border adjustment mechanisms, and keeping up with EU rules on pharmaceuticals, chemicals, pollution, and emissions. Rejoining EU agencies like Euratom, Erasmus+, the Environment Agency, and the Medicines Agency’s ‘open partners’ scheme would help. And a huge prize would be regulatory equivalence in financial services and mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

There is plenty to keep them busy – and if we make substantial progress on these sorts of things, the entire relationship will get to a very different place. Each time the British public sees its government sit down with our EU neighbours and resolve an issue though a mutually-beneficial solution – and proudly proclaim the outcome – we will gradually detoxify and normalise discourse about the European issue.

If that happens, then by the end of this Parliament we could be in a very different place in terms of what manifestos might say in 2029, and what possibilities could open up in the second term.

Of course, we are all itching to go faster. But the country is not. The wounds from 2016-2019 are deep, and collective PTSD endures. Labour and Lib Dems knew this and judged their 2024 pitch deftly.

The mistake now would be to cut and run for ‘rejoin’ too soon. Our step-by-step approach must continue, and with a new Government will gain momentum. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time…

 Gina Miller – True & Fair Party Leader

With the Labour Party celebrating its decisive win at the general election, the new Government has hit the ground running, fulfilling their promise to act from Day One. However, policy announcements so far lack the depth and details needed to repair the damage inflicted by the Tories over the past 14 years.

One crucial issue the Labour government must address is Brexit, which was never about our country’s needs but rather the infighting within the Conservative Party. With the election behind us, it’s time to confront Brexit head-on. Brexit has robbed us of more than political alliances; it has disrupted our connection with our European neighbours. Remember spontaneous weekends in Paris, ease of importing and exporting, especially for SME businesses, or studying in Germany or Italy? These weren’t just luxuries for the wealthy, but tangible ways ordinary Brits worked, lived, loved and made us feel part of a vibrant community.

Keir Starmer’s recent speech detailed his aims to tackle the UK’s skills gap, proposing plans to boost the economy, reduce immigration, and achieve greater social mobility. However, addressing skills gaps created by Tory policies while linking this to significantly lower immigration is both unrealistic and misleading in the medium term. Reducing our reliance on overseas workers will take time. Currently, many UK sectors require a transitional workforce to function.

Our NHS, struggling with a shortage of nurses and healthcare workers, sees 47% of its staff considering leaving. Dental care faces similar shortages, with plans to increase training places by 40% not coming to fruition until 2031-32. In the interim, how will these gaps be filled? Starmer rightly spoke about reforming education, but great education requires great educators. His focus on modernising the curriculum for the digital age is vital, yet we face serious shortages in core subjects like physics, maths, geography, and modern foreign languages.

Social services vacancies undermine efforts to aid the 4.3 million children living in poverty in the UK, and there is a need for more youth mental health services staff. The construction industry, essential for infrastructure projects and housing plans, struggles with a shortage of skilled tradespeople. The agriculture and food sector, as well as hospitality, face similar workforce crises, affecting service quality and business operations. Brexit has devastated workforces and productivity across almost every sector. The reality is that we need comparatively high levels of immigration in the short to medium term, and Europe provides a nearby, culturally aligned source.

Klaus Welle, former secretary-general of the European Parliament, indicated that Brussels would welcome an “honest attempt” by the UK to reset the relationship. This is what Starmer must do at the upcoming UK-EU Summit, and propose:

• A UK-EU defence and security pact.
• Easing trade tensions in agriculture and pharmaceuticals.
• A 5-year Visa Scheme for sector-based freedom of movement for workers.
• Rejoining data-sharing agencies.
• Re-entering the Erasmus scheme for students.
• Greater collaboration in the energy sector.
• Linking the British carbon emission trading scheme to the EU’s new Carbon Border Adjustment.
• Harmonizing AI and digital sector regulations.
• Re-establishing full UK access to the EU’s Eurodac system to monitor and return migrants.

The EU might be tough, claiming a lack of capacity to negotiate, but the UK is important to the EU’s unity.  In his first 100 days, Starmer’s government should clearly outline the benefits of free movement of labour, services, and capital between the UK and Europe.  A bold strategy to exit Brexit will allow Starmer and Reeves to take back control of the economy.

The pandemic has masked the full extent of Brexit’s damage, but all indices show Brexit is a major factor in the UK economy shrinking since 2016. An eight-year strategy to repair the damage would help in regaining our status of “Great” Britain.

As we enter the 2030s, a decade predicted to be one of accelerated change, Starmer’s leadership will be crucial in fostering unity with Europe against geopolitical instability and the climate crisis. This period calls for courage and vision to support the idea of a “European family” of justice, mercy, and freedom, once envisioned by a bold UK Prime Minister. Such a unified approach is vital for regaining the simple joys and hopes that make life worth living, for the Brits and Europeans alike.

 Professor Anand Menon 

Brexit barely figured in the recent general election campaign. On one level, this is easy to explain. The electorate are no longer that concerned about relations with the European Union – the issue does not figure among the top ten issues for the British public. On the other hand, there is something of a paradox. A Labour Party that prioritized growth above all else simply refused to countenance the kinds of closer relations with the EU (notably single market membership) that might actually have a significant economic effect.

 Looking forward, what we can expect, I think is twofold. First, a distinct warming in the tone of the relationship. This has been apparent already in the dealings the new Government has had with its European partners. At the same time, however, there will be real limits to any substantive progress in altering the nature of the UK-EU relationship. 

Certainly, both sides are anxious to secure a security deal of some kind. Early indications, however, suggest the UK will struggle to convince the EU either to define ‘security’ as broadly as London would like (to include issues like supply chain security, climate security and even migration) or to allow UK access to EU schemes intended to bolster cooperative defence-related R&D projects. 

When it comes to the economic relationship, the new Government’s demands are, on the one hand quite limited – a veterinary agreement, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and measures to help touring musicians ply their trade. On the other, in all these cases, agreement might not be as easy to achieve as some seem to assume. In each, not only will negotiations take time, but there are legitimate questions about whether the EU will have an interest in a deal (veterinary agreement) or whether what the UK is asking for is extremely complicated and hard to achieve given current EU rules (touring musicians).

In sum, the Labour government will ensure that the UK-EU relationship is no longer seen in competitive zero-sum terms in the way it was under Boris Johnson. The tone already is improving. However, substantive progress will be hard to achieve, and, on the economic side, nothing the UK has suggested will make a real difference in terms of growth. Readers might disagree about whether this constitutes a way of ‘making Brexit work.’ But it does point to the fact that, even under a relatively pro-European Government at the head of a  huge majority, the fundamentals of Brexit are not about to be questioned. 

 Professor Chris Grey

Britain’s new Labour government has already made rapid progress in improving the tone of the UK-EU relationship. That matters in itself, given what has happened since 2016, but it can also be expected to yield substantive improvements. These won’t take the form of a single ‘new Brexit deal’, but could occur in various areas, within various timescales, and through various forums. The kinds of things we can expect include a wide-ranging security and defence pact, and a veterinary agreement.

 I think there is no prospect of the Government changing its pre-election ‘red lines’ on rejoining the EU or the single market, or creating a customs union treaty. Doing so would immediately throw the entire administration into instability, and politics into chaos. However, it seems likely that the Tory red line of refusing any arrangement which involves a role for the ECJ is now dead. If so, that opens multiple possibilities for cooperation, and participation in EU programmes.

It’s sometimes suggested that Labour’s plans are based on ‘cherry picking’, and as such will be rejected by the EU. But this isn’t true. Much of what they intend was pre-figured in the Political Declaration which accompanied the Withdrawal Agreement, only to be ditched by Boris Johnson. Other things, like a veterinary agreement, have in principle been offered by the EU in the past. 

So, there are genuine, if relatively small, improvements which can and should be agreed and, crucially, the dynamics of domestic politics have totally changed. That is because all the pressure from within the governing party will be to push the front bench to go further, and get closer, to the EU. By contrast, even the tentative steps taken by Rishi Sunak, such as the Windsor Framework, met internal resistance.

There are also things the government can do without any EU agreement. These include maintaining regulatory alignment by limiting deliberate, ‘active’, divergence and by tracking changes in EU regulation to avoid ‘passive’ divergence. I very much hope that the government will also resolve the growing scandal of the operation of the Settled Status scheme for EU nationals in the UK, including by providing a paper document to demonstrate that status.

Almost as important as any improvements made to ‘Brexit 1.0’ is the fact that Keir Starmer has robustly rejected any possibility whatsoever of a ‘Brexit 2.0’ of derogation from the ECHR. This has now become an article of faith to many Brexiters in the Tory Party and elsewhere. 

Whether, under their next leader, the Tories formally adopt such a Brexit 2.0 policy remains to be seen. But, even if not, unless or until they recognize the folly of Brexit 1.0 there is little prospect of it being reversed, even if the UK tried. For until there is a durable cross-party consensus for reversal, the risks for the EU of yet another change of policy, under a future government, would be too great. In that sense, for now, Labour’s much less antagonistic and very slightly softened Brexit is the only game in town. 

 Liz Webster – Founder of Save British Farming

The General Election 2019 delivered a spectacular wipeout of most of the Brexit MPs who have dominated and Remainers have railed against for over eight years… but where is the jubilation?

This week in the Commons we were treated to a debate dominated by MPs who are asking the urgent and pertinent questions about Brexit which continues to blight Britain, the EU and the rest of the World. However, the only person who pointed this out was Nigel Farage, who claimed in his maiden speech as new MP for Clacton that he and his Brexit bandit chums are outnumbered in a remainer/rejoin parliament. This was missed by most, probably because we are exhausted and bored of Nigel droning on

The enormity of this win isn’t obvious to many, because Brexit was ignored in the election, it was the “Brexit elephant in the room” election. Brexit was only discussed on the sidelines and mostly by the foreign press, in astonishment at Britain’s Brexit-elephant-in-the-room election syndrome.

In many ways, there were parallels between the GE and the Labour leadership election after GE19. Starmer won by straddling both wings of the party, there was no jubilation following his victory, but he ruthlessly shaped the party to become a winning machine which has made historic gains, and now they hold significant power which can transform Britain.

I don’t know about you, but I feel many of us are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, having been captives of the right-wing Brexiteers for over 8 years. In fairness our freedom was really won thanks to Keir Starmer meticulously keeping the receipts on Boris Johnson’s rule breaking in number 10. It really was removing the key populist that saved us, and consigned the Tories to the doldrums.

So having been so lost to anger, fear and anxiety since Gordon Brown lost in 2010, I am determined to enjoy some optimism. Some of it may prove to be misplaced, but I can’t allow my spirit to be lost to pessimism.

I decided to back Labour when they committed to negotiate a Veterinary Agreement with the EU. This always meant that the aims of Brexit to deregulate and a ensure a race to the bottom in standards was not supported by Keir Starmer’s Labour Party and was very much putting an anchor down to stop the Brexitanic achieving a disastrous USA FTA. And now Labour have gone further, laying out in the King’s Speech new laws which will make it easier for the UK to align with EU rules. The biggest danger of Brexit was always divergence, which to date has only happened when the EU diverged, as Britain became paralysed by disagreements about what Brexit means.

So now the Brexitanic is secured, and the Brexit pirates largely thrown overboard by a sensible majority of Labour MPs. Last week, the new DEFRA secretary, Steve Reed, confirmed they are committed to ditching the worst trade deals in history negotiated by the worst PMs in history, Johnson and Truss. This means the Brexitanic is sailing back to Southampton, she has sustained significant damage, but hasn’t sunk in the Atlantic and I, for one, am determined to help get her home. I’m not going to stop campaigning until we rejoin, but I now sense that rejoining the EU is inevitable.

 Lord Chris Rennard MBE

The Government agenda was clearly set in the King’s Speech. Its top priority is to drive economic growth, which is seen as essential to restoring public services. The campaign showed that no party wants to ask taxpayers to pay more during a cost-of-living crisis. But no party had the courage to say that low economic growth and the cost-of-living crisis are partly the result of Brexit.

 On immigration, the parties also swerved away from pointing out that the Brexiteers signed a deal without a returns policy or that ending freedom of movement within the EU has substantially increased levels of immigration, as people from further afield generally stay longer and also bring their families.

The election was an absolutely crushing defeat for those who brought about Brexit. The former constituencies of David Cameron, Theresa May, and Boris Johnson are now all held by the Liberal Democrats.  Liz Truss lost to Labour in the seat which she won with a 26,000 majority in 2019.  Many people will feel that they got their “comeuppance”, with polls showing that most people now think that Brexit was wrong.

But how can we begin to reverse it?  Incremental changes in the right direction are already being made.  But it will take greater courage and more time for Keir Starmer to use his advocacy skills to explain that aligning ourselves again with our neighbours is in the interests of our own economy.  He must also explain that this will be best done by us having a proper say in the rules, requiring membership of the Single Market.  Perhaps a 2029 Manifesto commitment?

Re-joining the EU will probably also require the adoption of Proportional Representation, which has had the support of the Labour Party members in recent years. I doubt if we could be re-admitted without ensuring that the U.K. would not adopt a “Hokey Cokey” approach to membership in future. Tony Blair’s biggest mistake after 1997 was not moving on electoral reform. This led directly to the Brexit referendum and what was later called the decade of chaos. Labour must be ready to move in their next Manifesto. These measures would attract widespread support and encourage co-operation with all the sensible opposition parties.

A leading UK authority on international trade policy, David Henig is Director of the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE), where he examines the economic and trade implications of Brexit and broader UK policy. He writes regularly for Borderlex, serves as an Expert Adviser to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee and advised the former UK Trade and Business Commission.

David Eldridge: What should be the top priorities for the new government?

Behaving like a normal, competent government would be a good start across a lot of policy areas. Listening to a broad range of experts rather than just those sharing a narrow ideology would be an improvement. There are so many interlinked issues of public services and the economy that need fixing, and upping the rate of growth is so important to tackling them. Regulatory stability would be a great place to start: rather than creating uncertainty in goods, at least we should link to the EU. This would provide an incentive for investment. Removing barriers to trade in the neighbourhood is complementary to this. Then there are the sensitive domestic issues directly linked to growth, of which overseas students is the largest – we really should be taking advantage of being an attractive place to study, not complaining that people want to come to the UK.

Steven Wilson: How sustainable is the prospective new Labour government’s attitude towards Brexit?

In the first instance, seeking small steps towards improving the EU relationship isn’t just sustainable, it is essential. Our negotiating legacy since 2016 is toxic in Brussels, and there is a need to build trust that the UK will actually negotiate in good faith and keep commitments. Within Labour’s red lines of not rejoining the single market or customs union there is more that can be done beyond the manifesto commitments of a Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) deal, professional qualification recognition (actually very hard to achieve), and help for touring artists. Joining the pan-Euro-Med convention on rules of origin will help supply chain participation, and the EU wants a youth mobility scheme. A security agreement seems very likely. There’s more to be done on energy. Start to put all this in place first, and then I think there will then be a conversation on whether that is sufficient, or we need to revisit red lines or the referendum. I don’t think there is a way to short-cut this process.

Anon: Without rejoining the single market, does Labour have any hope of turning around the UK economy?

All countries have domestic policy choices that affect their trade and therefore economic performance, and the UK deciding to put up barriers to nearby markets is a handicap, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be fatal for economic performance. For example, there are sectors that are less affected, such as financial services, education or defence, and large companies are able to overcome barriers more easily. There is a scenario where we focus more on these to limit the economic damage, but of course there are also issues with these areas. We could also promise investors a level of stability while staying outside the single market, such as on regulation, and combine this with being generally more open to outsiders and neighbours and striking as many deals as we can across Europe. However, in general we are certainly making all of this harder for ourselves by giving our companies higher barriers to overcome than their counterparts in other countries.

Ruth Woodhouse: In terms of trade deals, to what extent do you believe Keir Starmer will, or should, give greater priority to negotiations with the EU than with the rest of the world?

Thanks to replicating trade deals that we were a party to as EU members, we have good coverage around the world. The priority therefore has to be to improve what we have in our own neighbourhood, not just with the EU but also Switzerland and Turkey, where we have active negotiations. By and large Free Trade Agreements alone do not significantly shift the economic dial, as they mostly benefit large commodity exporters facing high tariffs, which isn’t where our trade specialisms lie. What we should be looking for is deeper arrangements such as regulatory alignment and mutual recognition, plus whatever we can on services, and this is more likely with others in Europe. We should also stop fixating on a US trade deal, even before they were withdrawing from trade, they did not tend to give other countries many advantages.

Lisa Burton: European Movement’s newly released ‘Manifesto on Europe’ asks the government to implement a detailed assessment of the impact of Brexit. What did you think of the document overall?

With the exception of the commitment on a detailed assessment of Brexit, which I don’t think is best carried out by government, other suggestions in the Manifesto seem broadly sensible and consistent with the general idea of improving relations as the obvious next step. Membership of regulatory agencies is a particularly sensible step, and builds upon the success of the UK remaining within the European standardisation community, an unheralded but really significant achievement for the British Standards Institution (BSI) which required extensive work with the UK government and various EU bodies at a time when relations were not good. I think such bodies will have to decide in the next few years whether to push outright for rejoining the EU, or to seek either a Customs Union or single market as a ‘halfway house’. I think there are drawbacks with all options but, until that debate can be had, then Brexit will continue to be something of a hidden subject.

Matt Burton: How far could regulatory alignment with the EU go in reducing trade friction at the borders?

By itself, regulatory alignment does not reduce trade friction at borders, though it has an immediate benefit in that companies trading between the UK and EU do not have to meet two sets of regulations. Committing to similar regulations does open up the possibility of reduced or eliminated barriers subject to negotiations on mutual recognition agreements, which for food and drink products, which are always subject to the greatest level of inspections, could be significant. There isn’t a standardised form of such agreement, and hence it is hard to say exactly what may be included, but in general it should at least be possible to remove some frictions. This isn’t, however, an automatic process, and to even start such a negotiation there needs to be trust that both sides are committed. In general, industrial goods are subject to fewer checks than agricultural ones, but reducing barriers will still be helpful.