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.

Helen Markwood : Do you honestly think that we have a chance of becoming a member of the EU once more under a Labour government?

Yes – I genuinely do, but not in their first term. They have not made this part of their election platform, and indeed have ruled out EU membership or even the customs union or single market. So they could not claim any mandate. However, I do expect this election to be a game-changer, and to see a new government press a RESET button on our relationship with the EU. Some of the issues EMUK have been highlighting, such as Erasmus+, saving environmental standards, musicians and performers touring, market access, border and visa issues, can now be resolved if a positive, progressive government sits down with the EU and looks for mutually beneficial solutions. Each time the British public sees that happen, and our government proudly owning the outcome, the politics of the European issue will detoxify and normalise, and by the time of the 2029 election manifesto I believe they could be much more ambitious. 

Ruth Woodhouse : Should the Liberal Democrats be bolder about pointing out to voters the negative contribution that Brexit has made to the current sorry state of the UK?

We would like them to be, and it would help them carve out a more distinct political position. But I do understand why they are not. They were wiped out almost entirely in 2015, but the party now stands a good chance of getting back into business in the next Parliament. They won 11 seats in 2019 and have gained 4 in by-elections since. They are now in serious contention in about 20 more seats and should overtake the SNP to resume their historical role as the third party. However, half their target seats and three of the four by-election defences are in areas which heavily voted Leave. Voters seem to have forgiven them for the coalition, but ramming an anti-Brexit message at them too boldly just now might steal defeat from the jaws of victory. 

Steve Wilson : The Tories’ reign has subjected the country to perhaps the worst prime ministers in living memory. Which of them, in your opinion, has done the most lasting damage to our democracy?

My personal view – not that of the European Movement – is that all five Conservative Prime Ministers since 2010 have been, in differing ways, disastrous. David Cameron was the most able and politically gifted, but sadly the old-Etonian/Oxford pedigree manifested itself in hubris. Holding an unnecessary and unjustified EU referendum was foolhardy, and blithely assuming he would win it was catastrophic. Theresa May, a decent and intelligent woman, mishandled Brexit comprehensively – she should have steered from the outset towards a softer Brexit as the logical mandate from a narrow 52:48 vote. Mercifully, Liz Truss only lasted 49 days and must have done more damage per day than any PM anywhere ever in history. Rishi Sunak has been out of his depth from day one, and clearly has little political acumen. This leaves Boris Johnson, who in my view is the worst PM in British history. Morally unfit to hold the role, appalling in office and a vandal of the British constitution – the most egregious example being the attempt to prorogue Parliament to stop it discussing Brexit.

John Curtice recently suggested that a further referendum on EU membership was possible/likely by 2040. Do you believe another referendum is necessary/advisable, and is that timescale realistic?

A referendum has no constitutional force or justification, but it may be politically necessary. Otherwise, Europhobes would say that ‘the people took us out and the political elite forced us back in.’ It needs to be won 2:1, like in 1975 – 52:48 the other way is no good in putting the issue to bed. It should come after the UK and EU have agreed accession terms – so people know what they are voting on, unlike 2016. Before our government would dare apply, and before the EU would let us back in, polls would have to show an overwhelming lead for joining, over a period of years. The earliest would be towards the end of a second Labour term – around 2033. Perhaps a Conservative government will end up taking us back in – there is no way back if the official opposition remains hostile. But if it hasn’t happened before 2040, I fear the boat will have been missed or the caravan moved on, whichever transport metaphor you prefer.

Anon : It is encouraging to see European Movement UK becoming more culturally diverse, but what still needs to be done in order to appeal to a younger pro-European demographic?

Difficult, and all campaigning organisations have the same issue. Younger people are far more transactional in their political involvements – they don’t generally join up to anything for a long haul. But making our campaigns relevant and exciting improves the chance of engaging them, albeit temporarily, and as long as we make it all dramatic enough when the big moment comes, they will come through on the side of the angels. YEM is doing well among young graduates. 

Matt Burton : As a former minister for the armed forces, what are your thoughts on a European Army?

I think individuals will always join the army of a sovereign nation. Otherwise, they could be called into an action their own country didn’t support. But British forces can deploy under either UK, UN, NATO, Commonwealth or (in the past) EU command and flag. This is great and nobody should get hung up about it. Europe will have to take more responsibility for its own defence in future, and an EU defence capability should logically be the European pillar of NATO – capable of acting alone when America isn’t up for joining in. It is profoundly in Britain’s interest to be part of this – aside from the issue of EU membership. I greatly welcome David Lammy’s commitment that a Labour government will negotiate a defence treaty with the EU and I look forward to British forces operating under – and on occasions commanding – an EU defence flag again.

Anon : What is the most challenging aspect of being CEO of European Movement UK?

Riding two horses at once. We know that to grow, we must recruit members and supporters, raise money and build up capacity. That means delivering to committed pro-Europeans strong bold messages, proclaiming our goal. By contrast, to win, we must be seductive and persuade the middle ground that Brexit isn’t working, and we would do better closer to our European friends. To do that, we have to meet them where they are, not where we are. There is a big jump between admitting that Brexit has failed and wanting to reopen the debate. For Leavers, Brexit failing is someone else’s fault – but rejoining means admitting they got it wrong. So, they need time and space to make that journey with support and a few nudges along the way: seductive not strident, positive not negative, unifying not divisive, looking forward not back. So, we have to master the art of pushing bold messages to pro-Europeans and more nuanced messages to the middle ground. We must use bolder messaging only where it is ‘safe’ to do so, and more nuanced messaging for general public consumption. 

Lisa Burton : Some say that as pro-EU campaigners, we should start shifting the dial now and start introducing the idea to the British public of the UK joining the Euro and Schengen. What are your thoughts on this?

I think this is dangerous. Our policy wonks tell me the EU would not even allow us into Schengen, much less force us. As islands, Britain and Ireland are not entirely compatible with the Schengen operating practices. On the Euro, the short history of the Eurozone has made the EU less dirigiste than they once were, and if they are going to admit Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and the remaining Balkan candidates, forcing those on a convergence pathway towards Euro membership is up with the birds. So, the Euro issue will be more relaxed in future and not a deal-breaker in accession negotiations in the way Maggie’s rebate, for example, will be. By that time, economic and currency arguments will have moved on and, who knows?… the British public might want to join the Euro. But it is a red rag to a bull for now, especially with that important middle ground – and best avoided like the plague! One nettle we will have to grasp well before the big battle, though, is free movement: a fundamental which is not going to go away, and which is hugely to Britain’s benefit if people could only be persuaded to see it. 

Next month

David Henig is a leading authority on international trade policy and Director of the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy, where he examines the economic and trade implications of Brexit and broader UK policy.

He is an expert adviser to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee and former adviser of the UK Trade and Business Commission. He previously served as a trade specialist in the UK Government, including 3 years on TTIP talks and establishing the Department for International Trade after 2016.

Please submit any questions for David to enquiries@bremaininspain.com no later than Friday 8 June.

Liz Webster is the founder of Save British Farming, established to challenge the impact of Brexit on British farming and to oppose the decline in British food, animal welfare and environmental standards. Liz was also the lead plaintiff in the 2017 Article 50 court case vs. the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Liz is actively campaigning to rejoin the Single Market and is a regular anti-Brexit commentator in the media.

Lisa Burton: Apart from rejoining the EU, what policy and legislation would you like to see from the current/future government to help farmers and encourage more food production?

I’d like to see a return of a Resale Price Maintenance Act (the Tories repealed it in 1964 when Tesco was beginning to expand). This stops middlemen and supermarkets from paying producers less than the cost of production. They have a similar mechanism in France. In 2020, the Tories decided to no longer recognise food as a public good and instead made the environment a public good. This means farmers now receive public money for environmental work/projects. However, farmers believe we should produce food AND look after the environment. 

Additionally, and worryingly, this new policy is ensuring there are more factory farms, which are also getting larger. Paying farmers to park-keep whilst enabling lower-standard food production/imports to increase is greenwashing! We would like to see a return to food being seen as a public good.

Ruth Woodhouse: Has Labour outlined its plans for supporting farmers if it gains power at the next general election?

Labour have been clear about their Brexit plans for securing a veterinary agreement. I see this as anchoring the Brexitanic. Keir Starmer (in Canada last September) disclosed they don’t want to diverge or lower standards. This is a clear indication that Labour are committed to work for closer alignment with Europe. In addition, Save British Farming have been asked to give evidence to the Rural Policy Group APPG, and to sit on a working panel for a Labour think tank to make policy which will be supplied directly to the Shadow Cabinet. This has given us huge confidence and optimism after 14 years of governance which has been anti-farming.

Over the last four years, Shadow Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner has worked with us, so we feel optimistic he is listening to us. No government survives a food crisis and for sure the Tories have done their best to cook one.

Michael Soffe: There appears to be a widespread misconception that the farming community voted for Brexit. If that is the case, is there now a feeling of regret? If the contrary is true, how do you combat this misconception?

The farming vote on Brexit was split and it’s actually impossible to work out the exact vote. The farming community is actually very diverse, from livestock market employees to farm managers, labourers to farm owners and tenants, as well as suppliers of agricultural goods. Harper Adams University did some research on this and found the vote was actually more about geographical location and education level/age.

The Leave campaign successfully harnessed farming and fishing, and our Union Jack, for their campaign: it’s important we fight to get this back from them. Not all fishermen voted Brexit either!

It is very disappointing that remainers attack Brexit voters and say silly things like, “You reap what you sow”. Destroying British food sees the poorest suffer hardest. It also doesn’t help bring us together by blaming voters. We need to find a place where we agree to find solutions, not blame people – of course we can blame the Tories and Farage, etc! But ultimately Brexit is a war on our food, freedoms and protections, and that is a war on us all. 

Matt Burton: Why do you think British Farmers aren’t protesting on the scale of our European neighbours?

It’s not in the British psyche to protest, we are a nation of cap doffers. British farmers came to rely on the French to push back against bad trade deals and policy. We should have followed the French and had a revolution!

Steve Wilson: In the Save British Farming petition, you mention a number of demands: fair trade, protecting standards, food labelling, labour shortages, funding and sustainability. Which of these is the most pressing and how could the situation be eased in the short-term?

All of these are a priority for British farming, fish and food and without doubt we need to get rid of trade barriers with the EU just to ensure we have enough food. Food production in the UK (particularly England) has collapsed and the Ukraine war and recent weather events have worsened this. The only way to guarantee food supply is to work to get back in the EU asap. I have communicated this to Labour and I believe others have too. Longer term for British farming we need a food plan and a government which values British food (this includes fishing).  A country which cannot feed itself does not have sovereignty!

Anon: How do you deal with a lack of understanding by the public re Brexit-related issues such as trade barriers, new import charges, “not for EU” labelling etc., & would you say that the farming community is, on the whole, better informed in this regard?

The farming community is not well educated generally. Most are older and have insular lives. They are learning, and with our campaign we have to tread a careful line on Brexit. This is likely why I appreciate Starmer’s difficulties as he tries not to trigger Brexit defenders! Our last demo definitely cut through and we feel we are making progress, but I am also grounded about the fact that the hard yards begin when Labour get into government. If the Tories win again, we accept the fight will be lost, because they won’t and don’t respond to what the people want.

Susan Scarrott: In July 2020 the Tories voted against protecting food standards for imports in post Brexit Trade Deals. Do you feel this was a deliberate attempt to undermine British Farmers to open the door for cheap imports?

Yes, most certainly the Tories want to lower standards here and also in the EU. They are largely working for the IEA who are funded by big USA corporations. In September 2020, I met with Henry Dimbleby who was in charge of writing the failed food plan. I asked him why he voted Brexit. He replied, “Oh that’s easy! Because post war policy has led to over intensification and over population.” I believe the drive for Brexit was always about allowing global corporations e.g. Cargill/Avara control of our food supply, leading to a total loss of control. It is maddening that Brexit was won on a false prospectus. People thought they were voting for more Britishness and more control, when the opposite is true.

Derek Ironside: Is there now a consensus in the British Farming Industry that feel it would beneficial to rejoin, at minimum, the Single Market?

The farmers who voted remain absolutely want to rejoin the EU! Many who voted Brexit don’t want to talk about Brexit, but are happy to moan about what it’s doing. We don’t want to rub their faces in it and don’t need to at this stage. We just need to lead them to support our efforts to build pressure to ensure this happens. We don’t need a Spanish inquisition type situation where people are forced to become blue flag wavers. Being smart about this is how we will win!

Iain Shirlaw : Considering the rising cost of living, increased border friction, and labour shortages in key sectors, why do the Liberal Democrats oppose rejoining the Single Market and Customs Union?

We don’t, and we are the only major UK party offering a route to achieve this, although I accept that we have had insufficient profile for our view on this. Ed Davey made our position clear in his recent Conference speech when said that “we need to renew ties of trust and friendship to set us on the path back to the Single Market”. I think that we should be bold in saying that most people now agree that Brexit was a mistake, and I think that this can be said without insulting those who voted for it. Re-joining the EU eventually may require things like proportional representation (so that a decision made after a negotiation would be stable), or the Conservatives returning to their pro-EU position of many decades (not likely anytime soon, but eventually possible), and we also need to be seen to take people with us.

Ruth Woodhouse : Has there been any recent progress in building support for a campaign for overseas constituencies for British citizens abroad?

I was responsible for introducing the concept to a Lib Dem Manifesto, based on the models of countries like France, Portugal, and Italy. When I first spoke about it in the Lords, senior Labour figures said that they had never heard of it. But as we explained the arguments, it attracted more interest as it would avoid people who have lived away for decades being expected to vote on issues such as those concerning local hospitals, whilst directly electing representatives who as MPs for such constituencies might prioritise issues like frozen pensions as well as the drawbacks of Brexit (I see no “tangible benefits”, by the way). The excellent Unlock Democracy is now campaigning on the issue, and I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Overseas Constituencies and I spoke at one of their recent meetings. If enough UK citizens living overseas manage to register and vote, then I believe that this will eventually happen.

Lisa Burton : How do you feel about the recent ‘stuffing’ of the House of Lords by Conservative PMs which undermines public perception of the House and the excellent work conducted by many peers and committees?

I may be in a minority amongst members of the Lords, but I believe that the main alternative to “stuffing” is elections and that is the policy of the Lib Dems. In debates in the Lords Chamber, I quote Churchill saying that “democracy is the worst possible system of Government, apart from all the other ones that have been tried from time to time”. Many of the Crossbenchers make excellent contributions, but I do not think that someone appointed, for example, because of military experience should be voting on issues like the NHS. Any appointments should be made by a properly independent Appointments Commission, not by Prime Ministers simply seeking to reward loyalty or defections, or to reward major donors.

Steven Wilson : Do you think former supporters of the Lib Dems have finally forgiven the party for the coalition with Cameron?

Mostly. The coalition strategy of the Lib Dems in 2010 failed to learn from the experience of many of our European sister parties, or our experience of coalition government in Scotland, Wales, and Local Government. We needed to show our differences with the Conservatives, and not let it appear publicly that we generally agreed on major issues. Paddy Ashdown asked me to look at how our sister parties in Europe handled coalition when he was contemplating forming one with Tony Blair. I explained how those which handled it successfully often had major public rows with their partners and they used their balance of power position to force changes which everyone knew about. We differed from the Conservatives on many things, but it was a mistake to place the image of unity above the need for distinctiveness. With hindsight 2010 – 2015 was a much happier period than that since then, but as I argued with Paddy Ashdown, coalition is very dangerous for a “third party” unless it involves proportional representation.

Valerie Chaplin : Why are the Lib Dems so reticent about trying to rejoin, getting freedom of movement, Erasmus+ etc back, when so many people have voted for them because they oppose Brexit and want to rejoin the EU?

We appear more reticent than we are, partly because we lack the media exposure that we used to have as the “third party” when I worked with Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy. But he we have also appeared too nervous about offending those who voted “Leave”. I helped the likes of Vince Cable to win back his seat in 2017 after he had lost it in 2015, thanks to the coalition, by helping to make sure that we appealed to Leave voters on issues such as health/care and school budget cuts. The climate is also polluted by the likes of GB News, as it has been by the Murdoch media for decades. Again, I would quote Ed Davey’s recent speech saying that we want to restore Britain’s place at the of Europe and that this is “where we belong”.

Anon : The Government has done everything in its power to undermine democracy and lower parliamentary standards. Can a new Government turn the situation around and restore our former parliamentary glories, or are those days gone forever?

Agreed, and I hope so. I worked with leading Labour and Lib Dem figures when we were in opposition in the 90s to produce a sequencing plan for constitutional reform after 1997. We made a lot of progress until Tony Blair lost interest in 1999. Our First Past the System with “artificial” majorities is undemocratic and encourages strong hostility between parties rather than collaboration. No party has a majority in the House of Lords, which engenders a better and more courteous level of debate. We can turn things round, but it will require proportional representation, a new system of election registration to enable everyone legally entitled to vote to be able to vote, and an end to “big money” in politics. I have led much of the opposition in the House of Lords to raising party election spending limits to allow huge donations from dodgy donors, and I hope that a new Government will put a cap on the size of political donations.

David Eldridge : What do you think the chances are of electoral reform within the next 10 years?

I would like to shine a very powerful light into the eyes of Sir Keir Starmer and find out. His Party wants it, overwhelmingly so. It might have happened after 1997, but the power that went with a 179 majority in the House of Commons seduced Tony Blair and those around him into thinking themselves infallible and that they would never lose. Failing to make this change then led to the worst of everything that has happened since he was Prime Minister. Sir Keir should not be so shortsighted. The point may come again that Lib Dems hold the balance of power (certainly within the next ten years), and I hope that we would be able to use it more effectively than we did in 2010 to make our Parliament properly representative of the people who vote for it.

Anon :How long can the House of Lords last in its current state, and do you support modernisation? If so, in what form?

Reform began with the Parliament Act of 1911 and I have argued that “only in the House of Lords could over 100 years be considered too short a period of time to consider proper alternatives”. I supported the 2012 House of Lords Reform Bill which received an overwhelming majority when first put to the House of Commons for a Second Reading. The problem was that Nick Clegg mishandled a planned constituency boundary re-organisation for MPs, which meant that a timetable for debating Lords Reform could not be agreed with Labour. The Bill had then to be withdrawn and, some years later, so was the plan for redrawing constituency boundaries. We threw away a great chance for reform which had provided for electing 80% of the membership by Proportional Representation, holding elections for a third of these members every five years, and for each member to serve a single maximum term of 15 years. That would be a good place to start again.

Next month: Liz Webster

Liz is the founder of Save British Farming, established to challenge the impact of Brexit on British farming and to oppose the decline in British food, animal welfare and environmental standards. Liz was also the lead plaintiff in the 2017 Article 50 court case vs. the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Liz is actively campaigning to rejoin the Single Market and is a regular anti-Brexit commentator in the media. Earlier this week she led a farmers’ protest to Parliament to highlight the damage done by post-Brexit trade deals.

If you wish to submit a question for Liz for consideration, please send your question(s), no later than Tuesday 9 April to enquiries@bremaininspain.com 

Ruth Woodhouse : Why is it that the Tories will not acknowledge the damage caused by Brexit and that it has been a failure? Is it really just a case of not losing face? Similarly, why will Labour not acknowledge the reality?

For Tories (assuming we are talking about MPs), I think there are some diehards who genuinely still think it was the right thing to do and, to the extent they see its problems, genuinely believe they are because it wasn’t done properly. Others, I’m sure, who once thought it was a good idea, secretly realise what a mistake they have made. Still others never supported it. But, apart from any psychological barriers to admitting what a failure it has been, there are huge political pressures not to. The Conservative Party, and especially its local membership organisations, is very different even to what it was in 2016. Criticising Brexit would be the death knell of their careers now: it would be the equivalent of a Labour MP saying the NHS should be abolished. As regards Labour and Brexit, I’ll fold that question in with Steve Wilson’s, below.

Steve Wilson : The Labour Party insists it can make Brexit work. Is that really possible and do you think they will shift their position once in power?

Making Brexit work is simply a slogan to signal that Labour accepts it isn’t going to be reversed and there will not be another referendum, along with a commitment to try to improve the Johnson deal. Is that possible (within Labour’s constraints on the single market, etc.)? Yes, in marginal, though not trivial, ways. In a general way, a more harmonious and trusting relationship is possible. That may sound vague, but it’s important. Specifically, a dynamic alignment deal on sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS) is possible, and, if done, that would also set a precedent for cooperation that entailed an ECJ role, most obviously as regards security, but also possibly things like linking the EU and UK chemicals regulation (REACH) and carbon import (CBAM) regimes. A mobility deal of some sort could be done, and the UK might participate in Erasmus. There are good reasons to think that the EU would agree on SPS and security, while its agreement on mobility, Erasmus, REACH and CBAM, though less clear, looks possible. Is this Labour facing the reality of Brexit? Well, yes, to the extent that it is the most that it believes is realistic in terms of both domestic and EU politics. Does it repair the damage of Brexit? No, not by a long way.

What, if anything, could Rejoin campaigners do differently to improve their chances of success?

A while back, I did a list of Dos and Don’ts on my blog. This is a heavily edited version (see here for the full thing):

DO:

Keep going … it is going to be a long haul.
Keep pointing to the failures of Brexit. That may be negative, and, ultimately, the campaign case for rejoining needs to be positive, but we are not in that campaign yet.
Be prepared for support for rejoin and opposition to Brexit to fluctuate in the opinion polls.
React positively to leave voters who openly express regret.
Avoid getting tangled in issues about whether rejoining means joining the Euro, or Schengen, or what it would mean for budget contributions.
Configure the issue as ‘joining’ rather than ‘rejoining’: it’s about the future, not resurrecting the past. Both the UK and the EU will be different.

DON’T:

Keep banging on about the 2016 Referendum having ‘only been advisory’ or how ‘only 37% of the electorate voted to leave’.
Assume that individual EU politicians saying that the UK is welcome back any time it is ready is the same as that being the position of the EU or its members.
Dismiss any progress short of rejoining as a waste of time.

Anon : Do you think the result of the forthcoming election will be as bad for the Tories as generally predicted, or could they claw their way back into power?

Predictions are a mug’s game … so here goes! I think it will be closer than the current opinion polls suggest but, barring something big and unexpected, I think they will lose, simply because there is a general mood, among those who are not much interested in politics as well as those who are, that their time is up. That can be analysed in all kinds of sophisticated ways but, sometimes, politics really is as simple as that indefinable but tangible mood. Labour’s task in government is to convert that into something which becomes seen as an ideological sea-change – I say ‘becomes’, because it’s really only in retrospect that those judgements get made. That’s why, in and of itself, Labour’s current caution doesn’t tell us anything either way about whether it is going to oversee such a sea-change.

Susan Scarrott : With all the various factions and continual infighting, are the Tories finished?

It would be far too bold to say that they are finished but, assuming they lose the election, it seems all but inevitable that they will lurch to the populist right and pull themselves apart with battles over purity and true belief. How long that will go on for is hard to say – I suspect at least until they have lost another general election, maybe two. But whether they do that also depends on how a Labour government performs.

Lisa Burton : Your Brexit Blog ‘Brexit and Beyond’ is highly valued by many. Did you imagine it would turn into the immense piece of work it has become, and how long do you intend on keeping it going?

Thanks for your kind words. No, I never expected it to become what it has. I really only started it, in September 2016, for a kind of ‘personal therapy’, and at first it had very few readers. Then, I started using Twitter to publicise it – that was February 2017 – and it suddenly got picked up, by lucky chance, by a few high-profile people. Very quickly the readership expanded to many tens of thousands a week, including just about every journalist covering Brexit around the world, and politicians from every party in the UK (including several prominent Brexiters) and many in the EU, plus many in the EU’s negotiating team, diplomats, thinktank people, etc. 

Its popularity has slightly declined in the last couple of years, but not by much. All that is good, but it has put pressure on me to keep writing it regularly, and to a decent standard. I’m well aware that its profile means that if I make, say, some serious error of fact, I could get pounced on. Anyway, I’m proud of it, and especially of the fact that many people say it will become a resource for historians. I don’t know if that’s true, but it is true there is nothing quite like it as a contemporaneous record of what has happened. I’m not sure how long I’ll keep going, but I’ve no immediate plans to stop. It has become a labour of love!

Anon : The Tories have made so many assaults on British democracy and have avoided transparency. Is there a particular assault on British values that stands out for you?

So many to choose from, as you say. I suppose the Prorogation was the most direct assault on democracy, but at least it was ruled unlawful. The most grotesque thing, to me, was the Mail’s ‘Enemies of the People’ headline. It was disgusting and totalitarian in its formulation and implication. OK, that was done by a newspaper, not the Tory Party, but it should have been unequivocally condemned by every single Government minister including the then PM Theresa May. In fact, shortly afterwards, its author (who also, reportedly, wrote the actual headline) was appointed by May as her official spokesperson.

Next month

Formerly the Chief Executive of the Liberal Democrat Party, Lord Rennard was elevated to the House of Lords in 1999. He was Director of Campaigns and Elections for the Liberal Democrats from 1989 to 2003 and Chief Executive of the Party from 2003 to 2009. If you wish to submit a question for consideration, please email us at enquiries@bremaininspain.com no later than Saturday 9 March.

Gina Miller: I fear the damage Brexit delusion is doing to our country, but election year brings real hope

Since the United Kingdom left the European Union at the start of this decade, the inevitable cost and disruption that comes with Brexit reality and the UK being a third country are coming home to roost, post-pandemic.

Full border checks on EU imports have been delayed five times – but come the end of this month, Brexit Britain must face the music. New border controls on animal and plant products have been dressed up by Ministers as a new-and-improved “Border Trade Operating Model”. Yet, according to Sky News, the changes will cost businesses £330m a year, on top of considerable additional costs for energy, staff, overheads and supplies during 2023.

Nearly half of SMEs are saying they’re spending 20-60% more than in 2022. Additionally, the Energy Bill Discount Scheme is set to end in March 2024, which will only make things worse with even higher bills, as the energy crisis is set to continue due to global uncertainty. These additional costs will inevitably be reflected in shopping baskets.

This is my first fear for 2024 – that a Britain already struggling with a prolonged and bitter cost of living crisis will be uniquely subject to more hardship as the Brexit damage deepens.

The Red Sea crisis has thrown international shipping into havoc, resulting in us experiencing the greatest challenge to global supply chains since the Covid-19 pandemic and the 2021 disruption of the Suez Canal. The prices charged for containers transporting an estimated 12% of global trade, worth more than $1tn (£790bn), via longer routes will have a huge knock-on effect on many goods. Companies as diverse as Tesla, Electrolux, IKEA, and Volvo are all ringing alarm bells – many are already halting production.

Add in the severe drought affecting the Panama Canal, the war in Ukraine, curtailed grain shipments via the Black Sea, and more frequent extreme weather, and I, like many, am left in fear of the impact on global supply chains.

The urgency to adapt and reroute not only comes with serious financial consequences – but also dramatic environmental impacts. Increases in shipping traffic, leading to severe changes in underwater noise, will affect fish stocks and marine mammals. Before the Red Sea crisis, if shipping was a country, it would be the sixth largest greenhouse gas emitter worldwide. Now, ships coming from Asia to Europe and the UK are being rerouted around the southern tip of Africa, emitting more carbon dioxide. Emissions will also be increased as manufacturers turn to more air freight.

The EY ITEM Club, a leading UK economic forecasting group, now says there is a “good chance” that the UK slipped into a technical recession at the end of 2023 – meaning we had two negative quarters in a row. While the reality of this will be confirmed to be true, or not, in February when the official GDP data is posted – it comes as no surprise.

In these circumstances, our country can no longer afford the delusion and conceit that there are Brexit benefits. The evidence that Brexit is costing the UK around £100 billion a year due to our economy being 4% smaller than it would have been following pre-Brexit trends is undeniable. UK business investment is growing 19% more slowly than the G7 average, with the negative impacts of Brexit predicted to gradually escalate, reaching some 5-6% of GDP, or about £2,300 per capita by 2035.

Another fear is that people blame the entire political system for the crisis they are experiencing. That mistrust and apathy leads to voters either staying at home or being attracted by populist propaganda, as we’re seeing with the Reform Party.

I set up the True & Fair Party to tell it as it is on Brexit, on political reform and the necessity of a health and happiness economy centred on wellbeing. To bridge the growing division permeating through our conversations, communities, and country.

The increased support we are getting, particularly in our top target constituency of Epsom and Ewell, is giving me hope for 2024.

Covid has muddied the waters in terms of damage to the UK, but the pandemic also delayed the harm of leaving the union. And there is no denying real harm is being done to almost every sector. The Britain that gifted Boris Johnson a thumping majority in 2019 is no longer the Britain we live in. The wave of post-Brexit delusion he rode is crashing on the rocks of reality.

Many people now know they were sold a pup – election day will be judgement day. With the polls consistently at between 58%-63% to rejoin the European Union (close to 70% if you strip out the over 65s), I am hopeful that the next election will result in a Government that recognises that Britain’s place is back inside the EU.

The Liberal Democrats and large parts of the Labour Party are alive to this reality. They know it in their hearts, but they dare not speak their mind. The True & Fair Party is here to give a voice to voiceless voters who say it’s time to end the pretence and start on the road to rejoin.

Even one True & Fair seat in Parliament after the next election would strike an enormous blow against Brexit and keep the flame for rejoining well and truly alive.

Achieving that is my overriding hope for 2024. If you want Britain back around the top table in Europe, join with me to make it happen.

Prof. Juliet Lodge: My hopes for 2024

Peace. Gentleness. Fairness. Equity. Tolerance. An end to poverty and tyranny. Political honesty. Governments respecting and serving citizens and upholding international law.

Looking just at the UK, evidence that Tory Brexit has busted Britain inundates us daily. I hope that we recall the relative calm of life pre-2016 and recognise that we neither have to continue to expect and accept misgovernment, nor shrug off emerging evidence of tawdry mismanagement, complacent, socially uncaring, lazy, ignorant and arrant incompetence, ministerial lies and depraved bungocracy. We did better then and we can do better in 2024.

My hopes for 2024 include us learning from and working with our EU partners, contributing to democratic renewal domestically and building democratic resilience in the reforming EU. We share the EU’s hopes and investment in combating disinformation, and commitment to frustrate foreign interference and corrupt players gaming democracy with malign intent.

I hope that critical reflection can triumph over the fake certainties implied by binary black or white options, and the lure of automated, inevitably biased decisions. 2024 must start the process to end the deprivation imposed by limiting choice, whether by biased humans or by big online platforms. Choice must be shared and cherished so we can try to be innovative in trying to realise a better world, not least for our younger generations and children. Wouldn’t we welcome the EU Childrens’ Participation Platform and efforts to ensure equality for all, no matter how challenging?

Only vandals would drag us out of the ECHR, so I hope that 2024 will see the UK electing a Government of integrity, willing to face the need to be a sane, safe, trustable, tolerant, fair, empathetic, constructive, ethical and forward-looking player on the world stage. One committed to realising the best for ordinary people. One informed enough to understand that kindness, commitment to upholding human rights, sustaining the rights we had in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and boosting a welfare state, is not weakness but a sign of a mature society.

I hope that the UK, like the EU, will act on the need for constitutional change and reform; that a UK Government will have the vision to include proportional representation in its aspirations for a fair society; that it will show understanding and realism over Northern Ireland; and that it will be courageous and bold enough to insist on the swift restoration of rights scammed from us all, unions, women and children since Brexit.

I want the deceit over the UK’s need to adhere to high EU standards, and to be in the customs union and the single market to end and be replaced by openness over why mutual removal of physical, technical and virtual borders between the UK and EU were realised in the first place: we all benefit from the four freedoms of movement of goods, services, capital and people. The disingenuous stupidity of the Conservatives’ divisive hostile environment perverts what the UK is and can again be.

People in the EU value EU citizenship and are more aware of its benefits, as are we, as the loss of it hits home, harming the lives of those with family across the EU and our ability to travel around Europe unencumbered by border delays. I hope 2024 will see the restoration of mutual freedom of movement between the EU and UK for families, and for anyone wanting to enjoy the advantages of ErasmusPlus. There is much we could learn from the EU to become more equal and inclusive. There is much we could choose to do together to combat those exploiting immigration from countries outside the EU.

There is also a great deal we could learn from the EU on AI and valuing and protecting individual rights, privacy, autonomy and integrity. We cannot afford morally, let alone economically, to deviate from EU standards, norms and values.

Like so many of us across Europe, I hope for open, humane, climate-protecting Governments of conscience, committed to facilitating public participation, public understanding of how societies work, and using public money for the public good and community.

A general election in the UK before the Euro-elections to the European Parliament in June would be welcome.

I hope 2024 brings and entrenches ethical Government by design and default in the UK and EU as the norm not the exception.

Peter Corr: My biggest hope for 2024, year of elections, is that my fears don’t actually come true.

Watching progress towards Rejoin has been satisfying, although also frustrating. Seeing the polling numbers slowly but surely increase for Rejoin, while simultaneously, politicians going backwards. Such as Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats joining Starmer in pretending Brexit can work, or that people aren’t talking about Brexit anymore, while all the things he claims they are talking about are directly caused by or made worse by Brexit. I want to see this Government gone, but it’s really hard to consider supporting other politicians who are also clearly lying to our faces to get into power.

The Tories have gone full batshit, to paraphrase a certain MP. Or have they? I believe the Rwanda farce has one goal and that is to force ‘leaving the ECHR’ onto the agenda. They could even put it in their manifesto, and make the whole election about it. Like a crap sequel to the Brexit election of 2019. Would enough of the country fall for that? I don’t think so, but I also never believed we’d vote for Brexit, so maybe I’m not the best judge. One of my biggest fears is definitely the thought that the crazy policies this lot have been coming out with lately could be given an actual mandate.

Over in the land of guns, it seems more and more likely by the day that Trump will win the election. What will that mean for the war happening in Europe right now? The EU should hurry up and fast-track Ukraine’s membership before then if that’s possible. As a side note, if it is possible, I don’t see why the UK rejoining can’t also be fast-tracked. Just a thought. I think Trump winning would have serious implications for NATO, Ukraine, Palestine and, well, the whole world. Another of my biggest fears.

With World War III being openly discussed by military experts and the media, along with even conscription – I think this should be a fear for all of us. Would I be comfortable, as a veteran myself, seeing either of my children being conscripted into the forces? Absolutely not. War is never the answer. But if it were not a choice, I would genuinely rather see them be conscripted into an EU Army than the British Army led by our own lying politicians. And that includes a government led by Starmer.

So, with dark news wherever you turn, it’s more important than ever to positively campaign for our hopes in 2024. That’s what we’ll be doing at National Rejoin March, which continues to grow and gain traction, both online and offline. It’s giving people hope and giving me hope. The team and everyone I meet along the journey helps me forget the Ed Daveys, the Sunaks and the Trumps of the world. My biggest hope of 2024, apart from for my fears not coming true, is that our collective hope will begin to translate into action by our politicians.

n the February newsletter we will be featuring Prof. Chris Grey who is Emeritus Professor of Business and Management Studies at Royal Holloway, University of London. Since 2016 Chris has been writing the Brexit & Beyond Blog, and he is the author of Brexit Unfolded.

If you would like to submit any questions for Chris for consideration, please email them to enquiries@bremaininspain.com no later than Wednesday 7 February.