Valerie Chaplin : What is your opinion on the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill, sending people to Rwanda, or housing Asylum seekers in barges?

Where do I start… I want to stress that I fundamentally oppose the Government’s Illegal Migration Act. In my opinion, making people criminals for coming to the UK through unauthorised routes and deporting them to Rwanda—or Ascension Island—with no future right to claim asylum in the UK is part of a wider agenda to undermine the ECHR and UN Refugee Convention. Housing them in disease-ridden accommodation is no way to treat other humans. I see this legislation as the culmination of the UK’s Hostile Environment brought in first under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition and Home Office Policy that has increasingly sought to demonstrate that they can pick and choose who comes to the UK and on what terms. Since the New Plan for Migration, anti-asylum rhetoric and related legislation have become a bedrock of the Government’s ambitions to demonstrate that they have ‘taken back control’ of the UK’s borders after Brexit. But with devastating consequences for the lives of those fleeing for their lives from conflict and persecution.

A cheeky plug, My colleague Nando Sigona and I discussed some of this in the latest episode of our podcast Who do we think we are? You can listen here.

Debbie Williams : What do you think about the Withdrawal Agreement? Strengths and weaknesses?

I’m going to focus here on the Withdrawal Agreement and Citizens’ Rights. Very simply, at least it managed to secure the residential rights of British citizens in the EU/EEA and EU/EEA nationals in the UK. I think that being circumscribed around this issue was a problem—which I know that a lot of you are dealing with. Leaving the issues of onward free movement and cross-border workers to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) prolonged uncertainty among those whose lives relied on this, and often with significant consequences for their ability to continue their lives as before. So much more I can say, but have run out of space… I am sure that you all have your opinions about what could have been done differently.

Clarissa Killwick : How important is it to change the perception of Britons abroad, (both in the eyes of the public and government), is it achievable, and if so, how?

It’s really important because misconceptions matter. Working on the issue of what Brexit meant for British citizens living in the EU, I came face-to-face with this all the time—whether trying to get the attention of journalists, government officials, and other academics. At times, advocating for your rights it felt like talking to a closed door because they had already decided who you were. But I kept on trying to debunk these misconceptions.

There will be no immediate change in perception, but it is important to challenge these. When it comes to providing case studies to journalists or politicians, make sure it is not who they would expect (in terms of age, race, employment etc.). If you are in one-to-one conversation, you can ask people whether they have friends or family members who have emigrated from the UK, and more often than not they will (the British population abroad is equal to 10% of the resident population of the UK after all).

Michael Soffe : How do we even start to change the mindset of so many British people that migration is a good and necessary thing for the UK when we have such a hostile UK press?

I think that it is important to register that there is a difference between the politicisation of the migration in the UK press, and what the general public think. Sometimes I think that the rhetoric is pumped up to try and solicit support for the Government’s agenda precisely because they do not have the consensus of the general public. However, that is not to say that we should be complacent. We should start close to home and think about how we talk about migration. I take my inspiration from Migrant Rights Network and their Words Matter Campaign.

Lisa Burton : Do you believe significant numbers of undocumented British are currently in Europe?

I am really concerned about this, and I have been warning about people falling between the gaps and the long tail of Brexit. In short, there are certainly undocumented British citizens living in the EU/EEA. I would not be able to hazard a guess at how many, but I would rather turn attention to the implications of this for their lives. As these are human lives, any number is significant. And the question is whether enough has been done to reach them.

In the short term, and depending on where they live, it might have no consequences. Being undocumented—and thus without a legal status in your country of residence—is a highly precarious position to be in, and it will undoubtedly have consequences in the future in terms of their access of services and healthcare, accessing rights and entitlements. And I also want to highlight that this might be through no fault of their own. There will be those who were not in a position to advocate for themselves during the implementation period—children in care, those in ill health and incapacitated—and others who for whatever reason were not aware that they had to do anything to secure their rights. These are just the headlines of what the implications may be and who might be impacted.

Molly Williams : What have you learnt about the British diaspora? The biggest surprises and inaccuracies?

I have been conducting research into British emigration for the past twenty years, and what has surprised me the most has been how little this is discussed. On both sides of my family, people have emigrated from the UK—I have family on four continents. I even emigrated myself as a child. So, I have always known that people left, and that they maintained relationships with their friends and families back in the UK. The per capita rate of emigration from the UK makes it one of the highest in the world, with the result that most people could probably name someone they knew who had emigrated. But it is not a topic of public or political discussion (although it is coming back onto the political agenda a bit because of fears of brain-drain within the Health and Social Care Sector). Importantly, until the mid-twentieth century, emigration was Britain’s migration story. What changed? Stay tuned to find out more … seriously, I am just working through this in my research.

Matt Burton : Is there now enough data to show changes in migratory patterns of British citizens emigrating to the EU pre-Brexit, when we had Freedom of Movement, and post-Brexit without?

Not yet! We know that people are still leaving—the latest stats show an estimated 92,000 British citizens left the UK in the year ending December 2022. Importantly, and linked to question about surprises, the UK does not actually keep records of everyone leaving the country. Nor do they have a way to do this. But back to the question, it will take a while to accumulate enough data to get patterns about where people are going. But I think a more important question will be about whether there are shifts in the demographics of who is emigrating in respect to level of education, occupation, age, and income etc. and how that maps onto destinations around the world given differences in domestic immigration controls.

Next month – Dominic Grieve KC

Dominic Grieve KC is one of the Tory rebels stripped of the whip by Boris Johnson in 2019 for refusing to back a no-deal Brexit. The MP for Beaconsfield from 1997 to 2019, he served as attorney general from 2010 to 2014 and chaired Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee for four years. He is a visiting professor in Law, Politics and Human Rights at Goldsmiths, London University. His work in Parliament on civil liberties and the Rule of Law was recognised by two awards – Parliamentarian of the Year in 2005 and in 2014 by a Lifetime Achievement award from Liberty. On 30 June this year European Movement UK announced his appointment as Vice President.

In our occasional “Bremainers Ask Revisited” feature, we ask former contributors to comment on the current state of play, and Brexit in particular.

This time we asked Marina Purkiss (Jeremy Kyle Show/Bylines/Trawl Podcast), Professor Anand Menon (Director, UK in a Changing Europe) and Peter Corr (National Rejoin March) to comment on the first six months of 2023 and what might happen next.

Marina Purkiss

The first half of 2023 has been surprisingly worse than I expected. It feels like we’re in a position now where the Conservatives can see from the polls that there is no appetite for them anymore. People no longer want a Conservative government. They’ve had enough and they want change.

As a result of that, certainly in this first half of the year and, scarily, probably into the second half (and until they’re out of power), I think that what we are now seeing is a smash and grab; a raid on the public purse. There is no care, no consideration. They are breaking convention, they are breaching rules of conduct, they are not correcting Hansard. They are chucking out contracts left, right and centre, and any prospect of Sunak being the champion of integrity and professionalism and accountability that he promised he would be has gone out of the window. It’s dire.

In terms of the Brexit effect, I think the one promising thing is that polls show that there is no longer an appetite for Brexit. Even Leave voters are seeing the error of their ways. In fact, the latest YouGov poll released this week (i.e. the Government’s own polling) shows that if another referendum were held tomorrow, a majority of people (55%) would vote to Rejoin. So that’s one glimmer of hope.

The sad thing is that not one of the main opposition parties feel they can openly campaign to rejoin. In fact, we’re in the crazy situation where we have got Tories talking about it more than Labour are. Labour have chosen to adopt this make Brexit work stance. It’s frustrating as hell, but I get it. Consider that despite Labour being so absolute, so final in their language and saying they will not rejoin – and yes still the Tories and their right-wing shills are telling all and sundry that Keir Starmer will take us back into the EU. So I understand why Starmer is having to play it this way – otherwise the next election becomes a de facto referendum on rejoining the EU. But nevertheless, it’s a sad indictment on the state of our politics and the press in this country.

However, it is very frustrating that the people who are now starting to talk about Rejoining, or the even the problems of Brexit, seems to be more in the Tory camp. Tobias Elwood has actually come out and talked openly about it. Even the former austerity Chancellor, George Osborne, has talked about the error that this country made in leaving the European Union and the problems that it caused. It was reported just today that Brexit is like a slow puncture for the UK. Don’t we know it…

Rishi Sunak meanwhile, has not stopped bleating on about those five pledges, the key one being to bring down inflation. Yet, what really, really gets to me, and I’m sure many of your readers, is that he talks about how he will do everything within his power to tackle inflationary pressures. And yet the one thing that is in their power, that really does impact inflation, is Brexit. And they will not talk about it, and they will not recognise or acknowledge the impact this is having and will continue to have on our inflation. Add to that, how we are sleepwalking into further inflation-fuelled misery because, as of the autumn, full Brexit checks are due to come into play. Yes, folks, we haven’t even had full Brexit yet! We’ve not even enjoyed the full benefits of unleashing the opportunities of Brexit! These forthcoming Brexit checks are the ones that, if you recall, Jacob Rees-Mogg referred to as an act of self-harm. Yep, those checks. And there is wide speculation and fear that this will only drive food inflation in one direction, upwards.

So how are things looking? Pretty grim. But the things that are looking good are the polls: polls to rejoin the EU, and polls showing that the Tories are hopefully going to get obliterated at the next election. There’s a long way to go, and even if Labour or a coalition government do get into power, we can’t guarantee that they’re going to change their stance and bow to pressures from the public to rejoin. But, very slowly, as a result of the increasing damage, we are starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel. I just hope we emerge from that tunnel sooner rather than later.

Read Marina’s earlier contribution to Bremainers Ask (November 2022)

Professor Anand Menon

The year Brexit was betrayed. Or, for those of the opposite persuasion, the year Brexit was definitively shown to have failed. As so often, the debate has been dominated by the extremes. And as so often, reality is somewhat different. It may transpire that 2023 was the year we learned – grudgingly – to live with Brexit.

For zealots on the Leave side, betrayal has come in several stages. The Windsor Framework left Northern Ireland marooned, subject to EU laws. Kemi Badenoch’s watered-down EU retained law bill promised the scrapping of only a fifth of the EU laws originally destined for Rishi Sunak’s shredder. By May, Nigel Farage himself was on our telly screens declaring that Brexit had ‘failed’.

So, what does all this mean? In truth, not much. For all the noises off as Ministers compromised with reality – finding a modus vivendi with the EU over the Northern Ireland Protocol and avoiding the regulatory chaos that would have accompanied a wholescale scrapping of EU law – the Government was simply finding ways to, as the saying goes, ‘make Brexit work’. And the pushback was notable for its tameness. The days when the ERG tail could wag the Tory dog are, it seems, over.

All the while, Remainers have felt emboldened by a raft of economic data  – on growth, on trade, and on investment – suggesting that Brexit has had a negative impact on the UK economy. They have become increasingly strident in their criticism of the decision to leave the EU (and increasingly prone to irrationally blame Brexit for everything that is going wrong).

And Remainers have been able to point to opinion polls showing a larger proportion than ever of the British public now believe that to have been the ‘wrong decision’.

However, prospects for a reconsideration of Brexit, seem remote at best. For one thing, there is simply no political appetite for it. Labour have ruled out rejoining the single market or customs union, proposing what amount to potentially helpful but largely cosmetic changes to current trading arrangements (though there is no guarantee the EU will be willing to grant these). As far as Keir Starmer is concerned, as long as the Liberal Democrats do not adopt a more aggressively anti-Brexit stance, there will be little political cost to this position.

As for the public, while increasing numbers of people feel Brexit has not been a success, we should be careful not to read too much into this.

Unhappiness with Brexit is not the same as a desire to relitigate it. We have seen the issue drop steadily down the IPSOS issues tracker over time – last month only 9% of the public felt Brexit was the most important issue confronting the country. As my colleague Sophie Stowers has pointed out, when asked about re-opening the Brexit question, a large portion of the population (44%) consider the issue of EU membership to be settled. This could, as she says, ‘suggest that the popularity of ‘rejoin’ in a hypothetical referendum should not be interpreted as support for another vote’.

Furthermore, many of the Leavers who think the economic implications have been negative believe this is because politicians have implemented Brexit badly, not because it could not have been done well.

And finally, to perhaps the greatest unknown. What happens when the economy picks up? If, as seems to be the case, people are now blaming Brexit for economic outcomes that are clearly not the result of our leaving the EU, would an economic upturn lead to Brexit being credited for positive outcomes on which it has had equally little impact? How stable, in other words, is the current dissatisfaction?

The answer to this is we simply don’t know. But there is nothing inevitable about a steady rise in dissatisfaction with Brexit, let alone in political pressure for a change of course.

And so here we are. Grumpy, and generally quite dissatisfied with Brexit. But not really prepared to go over all that again. This might just be the new normal.

Read Professor Menon’s earlier contribution to Bremainers Ask (April 2023)

Peter Corr

The highs and lows of the last six months? Well, there are no highs, are there? So that’s that part covered. Pessimistic? No, just the truth. And I don’t believe anybody thinks otherwise, no matter what party you support, whether on the left or the right.

Maybe the polling will give some hope, if you want to see the destruction of the Conservative Party, and the Labour Party sweep into power. Though we’re still possibly a way off from an election and only a couple of years ago, pundits were saying Labour were gone for a decade because of the defeat they suffered in 2019. I think those people may be being very optimistic if they think the Conservative Party, who will say and do anything for power, couldn’t achieve the same turnaround in 18 months.

Inflation and the cost-of-living crisis is the biggest issue affecting most normal people’s lives. It is the cost of everything, from the clothes you wear, to the food you eat. There are, of course, world factors outside British politics causing this. But the big elephant in the room that is Brexit is also adding to it, making inflation worse than it would have been if we were still in the EU. Depending on which economist you listen to, Brexit is responsible for 40-80% of UK inflation.

It started at 10.5% in January and stayed stubbornly up there until May when it came down slightly to 8.7%. Sunak’s pledge to “halve inflation” by the end of the year is looking pretty unlikely, I would say, even though we all know if it’s achieved it’ll actually have nothing to do with him. Besides, I don’t know about you, but when I’m buying something, inflation is way above the official figures stated and certainly doesn’t seem to be coming down. Our weekly shop is nearly 40% higher than a year ago!

While this is happening, the Government and Bank of England are arguing the toss about what to do about it, seemingly settling on just making it even harder by putting up interest rates, meaning higher mortgage costs and in turn higher rent costs for people living in private rented housing. That’s around 82% of houses in the UK affected. This, to me, screams out that we need a huge building effort of social housing in this country to try and counter this upcoming crisis. Though there isn’t any party currently even thinking about this, as far as I can see.

Sunak is trying to get everyone to ignore the Brexit elephant though and concentrate on other reasons for the inflation, such as the industrial action the country has seen this year already. Striking over pay, conditions and rights, everyone has been on strike in the first six months. Amazon warehouse workers, firefighters, teachers, civil servants, border force workers, university lecturers, security guards, train drivers, ambulance workers, nurses, junior doctors, tube drivers, train station workers – there aren’t many industries that haven’t seen industrial action this year! But despite all this, the Government just uses these hard-working people as political pawns in their game of divide and rule.

Another thing he’s getting us to look at, instead of the Brexit elephant, is the sad and needless war in Ukraine. We’ve seen two visits to the UK by Volodymyr Zelenskyy this year already, showing the country what a real politician looks and sounds like, one who actually stands up for his people and country, rather than doing everything he can to wreck it. I am quite proud that our country is helping Ukraine against the tyrant Putin, though. 140,000 Ukrainian refugees have found refuge in the country, and that’s the Britain I fought for whilst serving.

I didn’t serve for a country, however, who would turn away people fleeing their own countries for various distressing reasons. The whole culture war, culminating in this ‘Stop The Boats’ rhetoric, taken up by both main parties now, sickens me. Imagine being so distressed in your own country that you risk your life and your family’s lives travelling the world with the aim of coming to a UK that speaks a language you understand, or where you might have a long-lost brother, only to be treated like a criminal when you get there – then packed away on a plane to a ‘safe’ country like Rwanda where you know other refugees were shot while demonstrating against conditions there. I don’t believe anyone but the nastiest of people are truly happy that we’re doing that to these people.

And I’ve not even really talked about the political scandals within our Vote Leave Government, have I? From Andrew Bridgen being expelled from the party for comparing COVID vaccines to the holocaust, Nadhim Zahawi being sacked over his tax affairs, Lee Anderson declaring his support for capital punishment (I assume, for anyone who criticises the Conservative Party), Robert Jenrick and Braverman getting into trouble over speeding offences, Dominic Raab resigning for being a bully, Richard Sharp resigning as BBC Chair after being found to have secured Johnson a loan just before he was chosen, Johnson himself resigning as an MP after being found to have lied multiple times to Parliament and the country (who’d have thought it), Nadine Dorries announcing she’s resigning, then not resigning, Daniel Korski withdrawing from being Tory candidate for London Mayor after accusations of groping: barely a week has gone by in the first six months of 2023 without another Tory scandal emerging! The party really are a car crash at the moment, perfectly summed up by that guy who crashed his car directly into the gates of Parliament last month.

I’ll finish by correcting my initial thought – I’ve thought of a positive thing to come out of British politics this year. It was Sunak coming out in support of the Rejoin EU campaign, when he declared to Northern Ireland, who celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement in April, that, and I swear to God I quote, ahem… “You are the world’s most exciting economic zone – in a unique position of having access to the UK market and EU single market. Nobody else has that. No-one”. As you can imagine, the country as a whole did a huge collective facepalm. I look forward to the next six months in British politics. Not.

Read Peter’s earlier contribution to Bremainers Ask (October 2022), and his great article in the New European (18 July).

Next month – Professor Michaela Benson

Michaela is a sociologist with expertise in migration, citizenship and identity. She is particularly known for her research on lifestyle migration, the middle classes, and Britain’s relationship to its emigrants and overseas citizens at moments of major political transformation, including Brexit. Her research projects include Brexit and British citizens in the EU and Rebordering Britain and Britons after Brexit (MIGZEN).

If you wish to submit a question to Michaela, please email it to enquiries@bremaininspain.com by Tuesday 8 August.

The important thing to do is to get the “Brexit has failed” leave voters onboard. You’ll notice that although a very high proportion of people who voted leave agree that it has failed, a much smaller proportion would change their vote. Why? I’m guessing it’s because they still believe in the vision of Brexit as it was set out, over the vision of being an EU member. So, they believe their vote was the right choice, which they’d take again, despite the fact that in the current circumstances it has not borne fruit.

You may have noticed some Brexiteers now trying to push a new version of their vision – “National Conservatism” or “national sovereignty” as a way to build on Brexit and make it deliver the original vision. Sell the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow again, if you will. That’s why we need to go to those communities and those people, understand what it is that they want for their lives, kids, community and country, then find a way so our vision of rejoin is actually something that inspires them, on their own terms. Only then can they get onboard with rejoin. Just bashing them with how bad Brexit is will not win them over – they’ll be looking around for something else now, a new hope, and we must have a positive inspiring offer for them. If we don’t, we’ll lose them

Valerie Chaplin : How do we combat the negativity of Starmer in backing Brexit – it seems we have no opposition to vote for?

That’s why, in England in particular, we need European Movement as a prominent, visible and large alternative. Without anything like EM around, people will get frustrated and not feel hopeful. But if we can show rocketing membership, a fast-growing organisation with new branches all over the UK and presence in media from local to national, with more big-hitters joining as champions in our ranks, then we can really capitalise on this moment right now.

Starmer has made some pretty silly moves by painting in Brexit lines too hard and reaching out to an Express audience that doesn’t trust him, at the expense of his own base. However, he has no control over the shifting mood on Brexit in the country. Try as he might, he’ll not be able to avoid the issue should he come to power. He’ll be under pressure from businesses, Labour members, Labour MPs, other parties, public polling and media questions. If we can effectively build large societal structures advocating rejoin, and the polls are showing 65% for rejoin, what is Starmer, realistically, going to do? King Cnut knew, and I’m sure Starmer does too, that a leader cannot command a tide not to rise.

Keith Glazzard : A Labour or Labour led government is possible after the next election and closer ties to Europe may well result in an approach for access to the single market/customs union. What do you think the EU’s response to such a move would be

“The door is always open” said Michel Barnier recently. Which is true, but also quite simplistic. I do not think that a majority Labour government would open such a question (CU and/or SM) in their first term. But a Labour-led government in a coalition/confidence-and-supply arrangement is a very different beast as the Lib Dems (the most realistic partner) would come in with demands on PR and Europe. So, that could see things move very fast. Even the PR part makes a huge difference on UK-EU dynamics because the EU would know pretty instantly from that that there would be pretty much no way any future pro-Brexit government could form.

But anyway – back to the Labour majority scenario: The EU would be open to it, but they’d want to see a rapidly-diminishing Brexit contingent in the UK, because the last thing that they want to do is waste more time on the UK playing the hokey-cokey (in, out, in, out) down the decades with their EU membership and EU structures.

If you’re asking about Horizon Europe, I find it quite distressing. A few years back for Scientists for EU, I calculated that under Horizon 2020, the UK had missed out on £1.5bn from 2016-2020 simply due to Brexit uncertainty getting in the way of collaborations, despite us being fully paid up members. I would hate to do the same calculation (i.e. loss relative to Germany) for the 2021-2023 period. 

I was actually joyful when the Windsor agreement was signed and Ursula von der Leyen said “this is good news for scientists” but noticed Sunak’s refusal to echo the sentiment. That then grew to an angry horror when I found out that, having waited for years outside Horizon Europe and shunning any Plan B because we were hanging on for Horizon Europe, that Sunak would then say he prefers a Plan B. That instantly threw cold water on the whole thing and will have had a chilling effect on our collaborations. 

Sunak may think he was being careful with money or haggling hard – but moves like that just lose money hand over fist. And I also note that Sunak, as Chancellor, threw out Erasmus+ too. What a wally! I want to see a deal on this asap – no more dragging it out and diminishing our science, or further diminishing and threatening this key bind of our nations. It’s vital that it’s fixed. This comes down squarely on our Government, in my view.

Beyond science, the loss of Freedom of Movement really bothers me. More important than our trade, for me, is the identity, rights and opportunities of our people (and, by our people, I also mean Brits abroad and fellow European citizens making their lives in the UK). Throwing away FoM not only took away an identity and a birthright from us, but it has done so much damage to people’s lives and families. It was wanton destruction. What needs to be fixed here is attitudes about immigration in general and free movement in particular. No political party wants to take it on, so this is where European Movement must do the work on public education, polling, focus groups, message testing, etc, etc. And this is a key element that must be supported by the public if we are ever to rejoin either Single Market or the EU outright. So this is where I want us to put a huge amount of work.

Anon : As Chair of European Movement UK, what changes do you hope to bring to the organisation & what is your first priority?

I hope to bring my passion, energy and my ability to knit people together from grassroots to big players. I love community-building and I want to build a huge, effective, pro-European community with EM at the heart of it all. 

My first priority has been to drive up the membership. That is absolutely the most necessary first step to getting the organisation bigger, so that we can take on more staff and resource the grassroots better. We’re not a think-tank, so we can’t get away with just a small team of analysts – we’ve got a vast community of members and local groups to service, train, supply, assist, etc and I take that function of EM very seriously. 

If we are to get the UK back into the EU, it’s not going to be done by a small team in Westminster – it’s going to be done by a huge great heaving community all over the country with well-resourced campaigns everywhere. So, the sooner we can get the membership and those underpinnings growing, the better place we’ll be in come the time. Additionally (and this feeds in) we need a lot more media exposure as a priority. European Movement needs to become a household name – and that in turn will help fuel the community build we’re undertaking.

Lisa Burton : There are a lot of excellent, active, pro-EU/anti-Brexit groups within the EU. Yet, Bremain is the only group outside of the UK to be affiliated with European Movement UK. As the newly elected Chair, do you have any plans to get more EU group affiliations or any plans to have ‘supporters of EMUK’ for the likes of industry, businesses, civic societies etc, who share our goals

Short answer – yes, absolutely. And again, this is why we need to build the kind of staff size that can support and engage with all such sectoral groups. I remember in the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign: I (as Scientists for EU) just could not get their ear on so many things. They had one guy who was a “stakeholder manager” and he was constantly deluged in correspondence and requests so he spent his whole time (as far as I could tell) fobbing off different groups to just give their team some internal peace. But think of all the opportunities missed! 

I know exactly what it feels like to be on the outside, with good ideas, but never being heard. I also know what it feels like being on the inside being swamped with requests that you cannot possibly manage. The only solution that I can see is to build the kind of team size and structure that can genuinely engage all the key parts of a nationwide movement and get the best out of all of them. And we absolutely need strong sectoral campaign drives.

Well that’s why the rejoin campaign is starting right now and learning right now! You cannot wait on last minute persuasion; you have to try and win before the contest itself actually starts. For me, the biggest lesson from 2016 was exactly that. By 2016, the Leave side had campaign veterans championing Brexit. They’d been at it for 25 years. They knew each other, they’d tested lines on it, toured around, found financial backers and sympathetic media. The Stronger In campaign, when it came together in late 2015, was constructed of people who were woefully naïve on matters European, and green as green could be on campaigning. So, for me, lesson one has always been to build, train and fully equip the army long before the battle. And if you look at what we have actually built since 2016, it is quite phenomenal. We have lots of veterans around, lots of hard knocks, lots of experience and lots of local groups who have lived through the tough times. We’ve built character and resources – community online and community knowledge about our core arguments – and now we’re really building central capacity at pace.

That’s the primary lesson. The second lesson is to be able to go out and meet people at their point of need. The huge comms errors of both Stronger In and People’s Vote was to think that endlessly repeating “economic damage” and “we demand a people’s vote” as pretty much catch-all campaign messages was going to turn people around.

Society is much more granular. People care about their own and their community identities, and community priorities. Yes, Vote Leave was saying “take back control”, but they were also going into actual communities and telling them “take back control so you can catch more fish from your own waters”, “take back control and scrap the stupid common agricultural policy”, “take back control of immigration to clear out these Eastern European workers that are sleeping six men to a room and undercutting what you can reasonably charge”, “take back control so we can get your Bangladeshi family over here once we stop the flood of European free movement taking their place”.

You see? That’s how the messaging was tailored to meet people at their point of need/desire. Yes, it was all BS and shamefully so, but it was all based upon what different communities wanted. When did PV do anything like that? We absolutely need to understand community need – and meet those communities at their point of need with our offerings, but unlike the Leave campaign, make sure they are solid promises and those communities stay onboard all the way to delivery. Brexit is failing because the promises didn’t hold up. Rejoin will be a success if the promises do.

David Eldridge : Apart from rejoining the EU, or at least developing a closer relationship with them, what do you think the main issues in next year’s general election should be?

The lead issue is clearly going to be the economy and who the public can trust to lead the economy out of the briar patch we’re in. There’ll be a big clash of Tories and Labour both saying, “you can trust us, but not them” and attacking each other’s economic credentials. There’ll also be debates around how you grow the economy out of a difficult spot – who do you invest in and where do you squeeze? But the main battle will be one over trust.

Flanking that, there’ll be more talk of corruption and constitutional reform. The public are still itching to see “real change” and both Labour and Tories will take aim at each other with portrayals of each other as complacent, incompetent elites. Labour will highlight the vast corruption and impropriety in office. The Tories will say Labour is the vanguard of “woke” culture sapping the civil service, business and wider society. As to what the issues *should* be (outside of Brexit); I’d say (1) guaranteeing basic quality of life (through a cost of living crisis), (2) reliable economic management to build out of crisis, (3) NHS.

Mike Phillips : How do we best promote the benefits to UK of getting back into Horizon and Erasmus, as first steps towards re-building a close relationship with the EU

With Horizon, everybody apart from Sunak knows the benefits – and I just don’t have his phone number. There’s realistically little we can say or do at this stage to swing anything there as it’s deep in negotiations between the UK and EU and it will stay there until they come to an agreement over money.

With Erasmus+, it’s a different kettle of fish. A really good ongoing campaign with strong involvement of youth groups can make it a prominent future-focused issue. Sunak will not want to backtrack on it before the next GE (although we could really hit him if we can get Conservative youth voices to back it), but it’s certainly a goer for a new Labour government that wants to throw something to rejoiners early on without compromising any of their red lines on EU relations (FoM, SM, CU).

So, that’s a real hopeful one to go for. Also, on Horizon, if Sunak hasn’t done a deal before next GE (surely he will and try to claim a win), then that too would be a complete gift for a Labour government. I’m very confident that eventually we’ll get both back. And then we’ll get more. And more. Until we’ve fully restored our place back in the European team.

In July, we will be returning to our occasional feature of Bremainers Ask Revisited. This time we will be asking 3 former contributors to comment on the state of play of British politics, and Brexit in particular, in the first half of 2023.

We are delighted to announce that our contributors will be Prof. Anand Menon (UK in a Changing Europe), Marina Purkiss (Jeremy Vine Show, The Trawl Podcast) and Peter Corr (National Region March).

Tracy Rolfe : What do you think is the best route to rejoin the EU and what do you think the timescale would be?

My sense is that many in the EU perceive our politicians to be way out of step with a public that is at worst indifferent rather than hostile to the EU, and at best increasingly and openly pro-European. There is appreciation of the desperate unfairness of Brexit on ordinary people, including Brexit voters, entitled to EU rights that the UK helped to create in 1986. The best route is not another referendum.

The timescale is unpredictable, given electoral variables here and in EU states, and the many other countries clamouring to join the EU (including Ukraine). I’d like to see us back in the EU tomorrow, and hopefully by 2030. Unfortunately, there isn’t a ‘best route’ in view of the hideous way in which our Brexiteer Governments connived in creating the worst of all possible Brexits, and given how they behave. It is hard to believe that they are as ignorant as their public face and party-oriented posturing suggests. They give the impression of preferring to side-step facts about the disastrous impact Brexit has on the UK and its citizens; seem uncurious about its impact on many in the EU; and in denial about how much Brexit has benefited our competitors.

Without a best route, politicians have to find a pragmatic way back. Any new Government must start by acknowledging the facts, come clean about the deceits, and prove its genuine commitment to being well-informed and working respectfully and cooperatively with our EU partners. A pragmatic way back doesn’t necessarily mean decades of delay, provided the foundations of a trusting and trustworthy relationship are cemented now. A new Government must capitalise immediately on the opportunities offered by the review of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement to restore trust in the UK and establish as close as possible relations, and work with the EU across the board. That demands openly acknowledging that we can’t achieve many policy goals alone. No country can. That’s why we joined the EU in the first place.

So, the first steps to working together are vital: paying our dues under, and participating in, the EU’s research programmes (such as Horizon), restoring Erasmus Plus and sector-specific freedom of movement, such as for musicians. But these are insufficient and discriminatory. What a future Government chooses to call what we need to do (rejoin the customs union or the single market, and restore mutual freedom of movement for all EU citizens, including Brits), is less important in the short term than being adult about what we lost and need to have. A grown-up leader should publicly and immediately work to ensure that families are able to travel and meet freely anytime, anywhere they wish; that good quality fresh food supplies are once more the norm; that trade flows free of bureaucratic barriers erected by the UK; and that our domestic and international security are once more improved by pragmatic cooperation and participation in programmes we helped to create and which we need. Our behaviour has to inspire respect and confidence in our ability to act honourably, upholding international law, and being the good partners we once were. We have to show that we understand and practise the values on which the EU was founded and thrives. That, itself, requires the UK to look closely at and address its own failings of democratic governance.

The UK has to prove that it can be trusted to be honest, open and accountable in upholding the rights and values and democratic practices we took for granted in the EU and which enabled us to flourish. In short, we have to show our value to the EU and offer constructive ideas for reform, dynamically confronting the many problems we must solve together in a spirit of open cooperation.

Steve Wilson :Many believe that the EU would be cautious about considering any UK application to rejoin. Do you agree?

Yes and no. Yes, because the Conservative Governments appear to have flippantly squandered achievements and wallow in toddler theatrics instead of genuinely seeking to have a constructive, working relationship with our closest allies and partners.

Yes, because there seems to have been a lack of understanding at the most basic level about how we worked when in the EU, and how the EU has worked (well) and developed progressive political agendas and policies without us. Yes, because purely from the point of view of presentation, too many Government and opposition politicians display deep ignorance about political realities in Europe and the UK’s increasingly irrelevant position in it.

And yes, because many feel that Article 50 should not be invoked frivolously in the expectation that its consequences can be overturned the moment things don’t quite accord with what the state who invoked it wanted. I feel that Article 50 should never have been included years later as an amendment to the original founding treaties. When the EU was created, there was no clause to leave it. European integration was the promise to work to solve problems together, in effect, forever.

No, because many EU leaders and politicians and officials, business and civil society representatives would welcome us back in the EU as soon as possible. Why? The UK co-created some of the greatest steps leading the EU to become what it is today: freedom of movement, the single market (warts and all), cooperation on defence and security, ErasmusPlus, health, climate, food and safety standards, police and judicial cooperation, and many more. The UK helped draft and agree some of the regulations which are acknowledged as genuine world standards, including the GDPR.

The friendship group created by Terry Reintke MEP is looking after ‘our star’ until we return to the EU as members. By then, many of those who knew the UK as a constructive EU member may have retired so we can’t just rely on them to be our advocate. But we can do our bit on a people-to-people basis to sustain, expand and deepen our links. Above all, we can show that a country outside the EU, which has a bigger pro-EU movement than any of the EU’s current members, is educated, interested, dynamic and a trustworthy partner who would add value to the EU.

It’s our job to educate ourselves in order to give our children a fighting chance of being in the EU, enjoying the opportunities that arise from having shared values and a commitment to democracy and working together with their European peers to improve the well-being of their communities. Isolation on a global stage is daft, on a regional stage it heralds oblivion.

Anon : As EU Woman of Europe in the 1990s, how far do you think women’s rights have come since then, and how much further do they need to move in order to equate to real equality with men?

Women’s rights have come a long way, but nowhere near far enough. Worse, we seem to be going backwards. Brexit seems to have unleashed in the UK more misogyny and an erosion of workers’ rights, inflexible working, discriminatory conditions (and little apparent attention to equal pay and opportunities for females); erosion of paternity and maternity rights, de-professionalisation of skills, exploitative practices in the gig-economy, lack of free post-school education, lack of access to EU funding for pre-school and lifelong learning, protection against domestic violence, stalling moves to a better work-life balance, undermining of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Brexit impoverished us all culturally, educationally and in terms of what we thought the UK stood for: tolerance and reasonableness.

Valerie Chaplin : Nationalism and the far-right thrive on disinformation and make us question truth and facts. How, in an increasingly digital world, do we combat this?

This area is recognised by the EU as a threat to its way of life. Accordingly, it has media literacy projects (which the UK could emulate) and programmes, such as the EuvsDisinfo project, to raise awareness and strengthen social resilience among young people as well as the public at large, and to improve rapid alerts across the EU to disinformation that represents a threat to democracy, health, the environment and security. Whereas hate speech is unlawful, disinformation is not. The EU insists that any of its measures to combat both should not undermine the freedom of opinion and expression enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The EU is investing in multinational, multi-disciplinary research teams to identify and combat disinformation without losing the potential benefits that AI may bring. The UK Government has excluded Britons from these teams. It cannot credibly combat manipulation of people for nefarious purposes while ignoring the standards set by the EU and the work it is doing. It must participate in work undertaken by those sharing common goals and values, and commit to upholding the human rights we took for granted in the EU. This does not preclude wider international cooperation, but it does mean understanding, pooling and sharing knowledge, jointly funding the kind of facilities and programmes we all need but cannot fund as individual states alone. It means working with our close neighbours to combat the challenges you mention.

There are innumerable initiatives afoot in the EU already: this year will see the EU advancing the adoption of a (reformed) AI Act which is widely regarded as setting global standards. This complements laws on the digital single market, and measures to combat extremism and disinformation. All must be seen against the backdrop of the next European Parliament elections in 2024 and concerns that hostile actors, foreign interests and non-dom media will use AI to manipulate ‘facts’, the news, citizens’ perceptions and even the results.

We all have to be vigilant, think critically, and know how to access legitimate fact checkers and assess independent reporting in order to improve our own understanding and knowledge, and we must show our children and families how to do the same. Above all, we need to join in media literacy projects and collaborate with the EU.

Matt Burton : Why are attitudes to compulsory ID/biometric cards so different in the UK compared to the EU?

I don’t know. Carrying ID cards in the first and second world wars was associated with national emergencies. In May 1952 they were scrapped. The UK Parliament reported on them in the 1990s. The Labour Identity Cards Bill (2004) was dropped owing to the timing of the 2005 general election. While another Act created the basis for a national identity register in 2006, this was scrapped in 2010.

Attitudes differ perhaps to those in the EU for many reasons, many associated with concern over state misuse of them; poor data handling and storage or even onward sale of data by the state and its private sector partners; fraud; and maybe an illusion that to be free means to be free of such a document. In practice, most adults have some form of official paper, plastic or digital ID – a covid vaccination card, NHS number, national insurance and tax numbers, bank cards, travel cards, student cards, loyalty cards, passports, driving licences being among the most common, and many of them biometric ones.

Legitimate questions as to the purpose of ID requirements introduced for recent local elections need to be resolved. The UK deviates from many EU norms in its seemingly laxer approach to biometric and AI tracking and surveillance of people.

David Eldridge : How has leaving the Horizon programme affected the UK, and what would be the process to rejoin it?

Disastrously. High level researchers have left (brain drain). UK universities have lost significant funding and hence a degree of research autonomy. Horizon’s budget for 2021-27 is €95.5 bn, including €5.4 bn from the NextGenerationEU to boost recovery and resilience. Worse, staff have lost the opportunity to take part in collaborative innovative research on matters from sustainable energy, AI and space research, to oceans, climate, industry, agriculture, culture and creativity, key enabling technologies, quantum security, robotics, combating disinformation, new treatments for diseases, means and therapies to restore lost abilities (e.g. through brain injury) or improve the lives of the most vulnerable.

The Government rejected the chance to rejoin Horizon because it did not want to pay its contribution to the research budget, as all partners do. This is likely to be resolved, but against a background of the EU’s overall general budgetary constraint. The EU’s budget covers things that cannot be achieved by states individually. The EU’s 2021-2027 long-term budget is €1.2 trillion and an additional €800 billion is available in the so-called NextGenerationEU recovery instrument for 2021-2026.

The priorities are building a greener, more digital and more resilient Europe. The UK has a role to play and it’s alarming that any Government would deny its people a chance to fulfil that.

Sue Scarrott : Do you foresee this Government continuing its journey along the road of divergence and isolation from the EU before the next GE? Or, alternatively, will it seek to limit the Brexit damage as public opinion changes?

This Government is likely to continue to diverge as deeply as it can and for as long as the current electoral and weak parliamentary system allow. It may moderate its position in order to show that whoever happens to be Prime Minister come the general election is potentially a more popular leader than any of his/her opponents, and rely on personalities and glib sound bites to win votes. It is unlikely to be disposed openly to taking steps to limit Brexit damage, even though the TCA review provides a good opportunity to acknowledge and remedy what isn’t working. Even then, voters must remember how fast the Governments has U-turned on commitments (such as the infamous claim of 40 new hospitals) and think critically before voting. In the background, talks have been progressing on many fronts – including security, migration and trade – few of which get covered by UK media.

Next month

Dr Mike Galsworthy is Chair of European Movement UK and co-founder of Scientists for EU/Healthier in the EU. He is also a media commentator about the effects of Brexit on the scientific community in the United Kingdom and a presenter on Byline TV. If you wish to put a question to Mike, please send it to enquiries@bremaininspain.com no later than Wednesday 7 June.

Paul A Brown : How does the political establishment, particularly the Conservative and Labour parties, come to realise that eventually the future of the UK must be inescapably linked to the EU?

Both parties clearly think that already, though I’m not sure they would phrase it as ‘inescapably linked’, not least as the purpose of Brexit was, in part, to give us a choice about the nature of that relationship. There is no suggestion that the EU can be ignored or that the UK could or should not work with it. Whether that means significantly closer relations than we already have is another question entirely. My sense is that there is little prospect of significantly closer relations under the Tories. Indeed, even steps we expected the Government to take following the negotiation of the Windsor Framework, such as a bid to re-enter the Horizon research project, seem to have stalled as negotiation over finance proves tougher than anticipated. Labour has promised to negotiate SPS and veterinary agreements with the EU, as well as a new security treaty. While these will bring some benefits in specific areas, they will not really impact on the aggregate economic impacts of Brexit which stem largely from non-membership of the single market. In terms of that, Labour have explicitly ruled out single market membership, and it is difficult to envisage this pledge being revisited, at least during the first term of a Labour government.

Steven Wilson : Of all the controversial Bills that have been brought forward by the government in recent months, which do you believe is the most dangerous/damaging, and how difficult will it be for the incoming government to undo that damage?

Interesting! I think the different Bills (Internal Market, Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law) have been damaging in different ways. The first two in terms of diplomatic relations with the EU and the external reputation of the UK as a country that abides by international law. Personally, I think the lattermost is potentially the most damaging. Both in terms of the potential to disrupt UK-EU relations (sunsetting EU rules has implications for the Level Playing Field agreement negotiated as part of the TCA, and large-scale divergence will impact on UK-EU trade) and, perhaps more importantly, for businesses, which will face enormous regulatory uncertainty, not least as it is far from clear that all EU rules covered by the Bill have yet been identified. At the moment, it looks like the Bill will not make it to the statute book in its current form, much as the offending sections of the Internal Market Bill were eventually removed and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill was eventually withdrawn. All of which speaks to a broader point about Brexit, which is that so much of the politics has been performative – signalling to Brexit supporters rather than actually putting new legal frameworks in place.

Valerie Chaplin : With Starmer ignoring calls for PR and to Rejoin the EU, could he fail at the next GE?

I’m not convinced that not adopting PR or a rejoin position will damage Starmer going into the coming election. I tend to think, not least as long as the Lib Dems have not adopted rejoin, that his Brexit position is probably electorally sensible (PR will not be an issue, I think). I think Labour will want the focus to be on issues other than Brexit, which I think is probably the right approach for them. It’s certainly possible that Labour will not win the election, certainly in terms of forming a majority government, though this still seems the most likely outcome at the moment. There is a long time to go, and a lot can happen. A lot will, of course, hinge on the state of the economy at the time of the next election. My sense is that Labour will not embrace PR even if they do win – the problem being that parties that win under FPTP are unwilling to consider changing it.

Michael Soffe : For those of us who feel politically homeless at the moment, do you foresee a full-on, mainstream, Rejoin party being created in the future (besides Rejoin and Volt)?

I am very sceptical of talk about new parties, given the enormous disincentives provided by our electoral system. I think the key initial development when it comes to rejoin might be if and when the Lib Dems adopt it as a position. This could spark a debate. However, the problem is that Brexit is declining in salience among the public as a whole at the moment. So I’m not offering you much in the way of hope in the short-term, I’m afraid! There are some people who think that Labour’s position on Brexit may shift if they gain power. This will not be to a ‘rejoin’ stance, but, it is argued, may involve a far closer relationship than Starmer is willing to discuss at the moment.  This may be true, but a lot will hinge on the outcome of the next election. A significant Labour majority will give Starmer more room for manoeuvre (and more certainty of having two terms to do what he wants to do) than a narrow one, or even being head of a minority government.

👥 Our Brexit Witness Archive brings together the first-hand accounts of the people that shaped Brexit, providing a historic record of the key decisions and moments.

😮 Don't miss the interviews for original Brexit insights and info.https://t.co/88oJLQ7Ssj pic.twitter.com/nA5pHKN2Dq

— UK in a Changing Europe (@UKandEU) April 19, 2023

Helen Johnston : You recently argued that the fire seems to have gone from many Brexiter bellies, and that the British public has lost interest in Brexit (Guardian 1 March). Is that a problem or an opportunity for the Rejoin movement?

I don’t think the former really affects the Rejoin movement, while the latter is probably a problem. To explain. The ERG no longer seems to be the power it once was, and many of its members have gone on to focus on other issues – net zero, China, economic policy etc. This makes it easier for Sunak to be pragmatic (cf Windsor Framework) but I don’t think has much at all to do with the prospects for Rejoin (which, to put my cards on the table, I think are slim). Simply put, I don’t think the initial steps in this direction, were they to come, would be under a Tory Government. I think the falling salience of Brexit is an issue in that, if this remains the case, it will be harder for any Government to justify spending time on an issue the public have little interest in.  I think a crucial issue will be the degree to which the debate about the impact of Brexit on the economy continues once we are out of the current cost of living crisis. Given the pressures people currently face, it is easy to see why a lot more is being said about these impacts (albeit I think some people are guilty of exaggerating the degree to which Brexit is responsible for, or contributing to, the current situation). Should the relationship between Brexit and the economy continue to be a live issue, then at least the conversation will continue, though the problem is there aren’t really any incremental solutions – the main costs of Brexit in economic terms are caused by not being in the single market. However, this is precisely what allows for what are seen by some as the main benefits of Brexit (ending freedom of movement, making our own laws etc). There is a certain dishonesty in the Labour position of arguing that small changes (SPS agreement etc) will make a significant economic impact.

Sue Scarrott : Do you believe the Windsor Framework will be instrumental in significantly improving future relations and closer ties with the EU?

Yes, but to limited immediate practical effect. As we saw from the Anglo-French summit that took place soon after the unveiling of the Windsor Framework, the agreement opens the door for warmer diplomatic relations between the UK, EU and member states. That being said, it would seem that negotiations on UK participation in the Horizon research programme – which I among others had thought would be one of the first fruits of a solution to the stand-off over the NI Protocol – have floundered. Nor is this Government anxious to negotiate any other formal agreements with the EU that go beyond the TCA. So, in the short term, I think we can expect to see lots of warm diplomatic words and friendly meetings, whether in the margins of the coronation, or at the G7 in Japan, or at the 1 June meeting of the European Political Community – but not much else.

Derek Ironside : Do you foresee the UK rejoining, at minimum, the Single Market via whatever means… or have we diverged too much already?

Not in the next decade, to be honest. It’s not really a question of divergence at the moment (though that might change over time or, particularly, if the Retained EU Law Bill comes into law). For me the main hurdle is political. I do not see a first term Labour Government thinking in these terms, and even if a second term Starmer Government changes its mind on this, negotiations will take time. Nor am I convinced that such a change of heart will occur. A lot will hinge on how salient Brexit continues to be, the degree to which the Tories in opposition (if, indeed, they are) continue to talk about it and so on. Labour will not want to give the Tories attack lines for the election after 2024, and accepting freedom of movement may indeed do just this. Much will depend on public opinion on legal immigration, not least as the current high levels of inward migration look set to continue for the foreseeable situation. The state of the economy will also be important. My sense is that recovery from the cost-of-living crisis might make the debate about the economic impact of Brexit less acute than it currently is which, along with the declining salience of Brexit could limit the incentives even for Labour of reopening the debate.

Lisa Burton : UK in a Changing Europe is a genuine academic think tank producing quality research and reports. Do you find it frustrating that so many groups now call themselves think tanks yet only seem to exist to produce conflicting and misguided data?

Ha, thank you! My honest answer to this is that many people, including academics, hate the fact that we have come to call ourselves a think tank. I’ve never, to be honest, googled the definition, but I must confess that I think we are the interlopers here rather than other, genuine think tanks. What makes us different is partly, as you say, that we tend to publish work by academics based on research. In that sense, I’ve always thought UKICE was not about Brexit per se but about convincing people – whether politicians, civil servants, or the public – that social scientists are worth listening to. The other thing is that think tanks generally are about making policy proposals and trying to get Government to adopt them. We are explicitly not allowed to do that. We can’t say ‘should’, in other words, but have to show what ‘is’ and let others make up their own minds what to do about it. It is written into the terms of our funding that we have to remain absolutely impartial. So I’m not sure we’re really a think tank, but one thing we do try to do is to question the veracity of what real think tanks say when this is in doubt. Our aim, I suppose, is to position ourselves such that people like you come to us for facts and evidence and, armed with them, can make their minds up about proposals made by ‘proper’ think tanks. I hope that helps!

Next Month

Prof. Juliet Lodge

Prof. Juliet Lodge has been a professor of EU politics at several universities in UK, NZ and EU. In the 1990s, Juliet was named ‘European woman of Europe‘ for her voluntary work. She has authored many books about the EU and is a regular contributor for Yorkshire Bylines. Juliet also co-convened the anti-Brexit group Women4europe. She is currently working on EU Horizon projects on disinformation where she leads work on ethics and AI. If you wish to submit a question for consideration, please email it to us enquiries@bremaininspain.com

Steve Wilson: Of all the government failures and cock-ups that you have catalogued in ‘The week in Tory’ are there any in particular that stand out for you?

I started The Week In Tory because of one event that made me laugh my head off: our Prime Minister, Fat Malfoy, had accidentally made it illegal to drive to Wales. I started tweeting about it, and as I was writing I realised about eight other stupid things had happened in the same week, so I listed them. People liked it, so I did it again, and here we are, two years (and two books) later.

But that one still sticks with me. How can a Prime Minister accidentally make it illegal to drive to Wales? How utterly, barnstormingly cretinous.

David Eldridge: Is the new agreement on Northern Ireland the beginning of the end for Brexit?

The beginning of the end of Brexit was 9am on 24 June 2016. It’s been dying since the moment it happened, but it will be a long, drawn-out death.

At heart, Brexit was nothing to do with Europe, or with the UK either. It wasn’t related to trade deals or borders, immigrants or sovereignty. At heart, Brexit was about disruption. It was a slogan in search of a policy, promising we could simply kick away the hidebound experts, and do something different. It never said what it would actually do, just not “this”.

But ultimately all governance is about organisation. It doesn’t matter if you’re Corbyn or Thatcher, Starmer or Sunak: your job is to organise things. The “this” people objected to was that organisation, which is always fiddly and complicated, but needs to be done. However, in the wake of Brexit we elected to government a libertarian populist movement, whose defining mission was an instinctive opposition to any kind of organisation whatsoever, and therefore a rejection of the very principles of government. We shouldn’t have been shocked when they turned out to be absolutely terrible at it.

And this, of course, means Brexit was inherently doomed from the get-go. I don’t think it’ll end quickly, I’m afraid, but I do think the Windsor (NI) agreement is the death of that libertarian, Johnsonesque populism. It’s the first time for years that a major policy decision has been based on rationality. It made me quite hopeful, which is an unfamiliar feeling!

Ruth Woodhouse: I understand that you have been scathing about what you see as Jeremy Corbyn’s role in the referendum and his subsequent actions. Do you feel that Keir Starmer has dealt with the Brexit fall-out better and taken the correct approach?

My main problem with Corbyn was his self-evident inability to win, which was clear very early in his leadership. If you don’t win, it doesn’t matter what you believe in, because you can never implement any of it. If, by some miracle, he’d have reached Number 10, he’d have buggered things up in a thousand ways. All politicians do, and Starmer will too. I’m not claiming Corbyn was uniquely incapable. But because he never got the chance to be catastrophic, his devoted army still believes him to be a sainted, lost King Over The Water. So he still haunts the Labour Party, despite being as relevant to our future as Jim Callaghan.

I do worry that Starmer is misreading the mood on Brexit. I understand why – where’s the election-winning value in reopening the Brexit wounds, which will probably only benefit the Tories?

But public opinion is now strongly anti-Brexit, Sunak is already delivering a softer Brexit in NI, and is even starting to talk about relaxing migration rules (although I’ll believe it when I see it). I think it’s a bad idea to box Labour in.

I think it’s inevitable that political and economic gravity will pull us back into the EU, in some form. I worry that by ruling out absolutely any formal relationship with the EU (such as joining the Single Market) Labour will find itself on the wrong side of history.

And Labour will inherit a terrible economy. The single best thing it can do for growth is to re-join the Single Market and Customs Union, which could help fund the NHS and all the other crumbling institutions left behind by the Tories. It seems daft to absolutely rule it out.

Brexit Trade Talks:

UK: We don’t like our deal

EU: Why not?

UK: We only get 95% of what we want

EU: It only gives us 95% too. That’s how negotiating goes

UK: We want a new deal that gives us everything we can think of

EU: But you signed a deal

UK: Don’t care, we hate you

— Russ Jones (@RussInCheshire) September 12, 2020

Anon: Assuming the Tory party suffer a major defeat at the next general election, do you think they can survive. If so, what do they need to do to transform their future fortunes?

All parties are coalitions, but the Tory party is taking it to extremes. They’re not so much a party as a patchwork of imaginary grievances thrown together by Mary Shelley’s imagination.

Since the late 80s, there been have countless simultaneous versions of the Conservative Party, engaged in a furious (and to most people meaningless) thirty-year battle over who gets to keep the name. A bit like Pink Floyd.

Thatcher held it together through force of will, and because she kept winning. That tenuous unity largely disintegrated under Major and the political minnows who succeeded him. Desperation for power made those who despised Cameron shut up long enough to win, but Brexit let the demons loose once more.

The unifying socioeconomic theories that held these factions together have been proven wrong beyond any doubt. Truss killed off 30 years of Tufton Street fantasy economics in a single afternoon, and now there’s not much holding them together. If (as I hope) Labour introduce voting reform, the last thing binding the Tories as a single entity – FPTP – would be gone, and they’d all be free to follow their own mad dreams.

From the chaos a new, centre-right party of rational humans could emerge, consisting of people like Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke. I don’t agree with them about much, but I can see their essential value and the thought process from which their policies emerge. And we need them.

I’m life-long Labour, but I’m not daft enough to think any party should face no viable opposition. Every government needs holding to account, and a sound, sensible centre-right party would be good for Britain, even from the opposition benches. Meanwhile the maniacs can all vanish into the anonymity of GB News for a decade-long circle-jerk, while the grown-ups get on with governing.

Mike Phillips: Does the current Tory party represent the dying embers of the British Empire and what lessons are there for the way we select our MPs?

I don’t think Britain knows what it’s for any more. A quarter of the world’s population was under British rule in 1880, and because we had all the money, jobs, flags and – quite importantly – guns, English ended up as the world’s default second-language. And we ended up assuming this makes us inherently important. It doesn’t.

150 years on, we’re a small, wet, heavily indebted island with few trading partners, no essential industries, and no means of feeding ourselves. We tell ourselves we’re the fifth biggest economy, but Panda is the fifth biggest cola company. I don’t see Pepsi shitting themselves.

We used to be a valued bridge between the USA and Europe, but Brexit broke half of that, and the shift in global power towards China has undermined the rest. We were once a beacon of stability, diplomacy and legal certainty, but now we smash international laws so we can treat migrants like cockroaches, and elect a PM who tells America to “fuck off”.

Unless we come to terms with our true status and build new partnerships for the next century, I don’t see a great way forward. And there is no partnership except the EU. We have no other neighbours. The EU is it.

As for MPs: we need massive democratic reform, and as part of that I’d like to see far fewer people in Westminster (we have the largest Parliament except China, which has 22 times our population). Instead, more local representation, better funding and powers for regions, and (this won’t be popular) pay the remaining MPs a lot more money. It’s a hugely challenging job with no pension, and if you want good people you need to pay for them. And we do need good people. But we should outlaw all second-jobs or political donations. Unless we have publicly funded political parties, political parties will always be in somebody’s pocket.

If something is offered to you for free, YOU are the product. That applies to politics too.

Lisa Burton: It’s a tough choice, but which politician do you think is the most dangerous regarding language and intention?

Steve Barclay. We’re all focused on the performatively evil Suella Braverman, the flagrantly pompous Rees-Mogg, and the shamelessly law-breaking Boris Johnson. But in the nooks and crannies behind the crooks and nannies, you’ll find Steve Barclay, diligently tearing apart the fabric of our society.

Of all the people I’ve written about, he’s the one safest from character assassination, because he was born without one. But he’s a wildly destructive force, sometimes holding three ministerial positions at once, and wreaking havoc across all levels of government. He gets away with it because he’s so effortlessly bland. Half the people I mention him to assume I mean Steve Baker.

Next month in Bremainers Ask – Anand Menon is Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs at Kings College London. He also directs the UK in a Changing Europe project. His areas of research interest include the policies and institutions of the European Union, European security, and British politics. He contributes regularly to both print and broadcast media. He is co-editor of the Oxford Handbook of the European Union (OUP, 2012), and co-author of Brexit and British Politics (Polity 2018). He is a trustee of Full Fact, a member of the Strategic Council of the European Policy Centre, a Council member of the European Council on Foreign Relations and an associate fellow of Chatham House.

If you have any questions you would like to put to Anand, please email them to us no later than Sunday 4 April.