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.

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