Lords committee to consider drawing Europe a little closer

Lords committee to consider drawing Europe a little closer

Dec 13, 2024 | Bylines, News

Resetting relations with the EU is now firmly on the government’s agenda but the devil is in the detail, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

 

On Tuesday 10 December, the newly formed Lords European Affairs Committee held its first public meeting. Giving evidence to the committee were newly appointed EU negotiator Nick Thomas-Symonds and Europe Minister, Stephen Doughty. Whether the committee are now any the wiser about Labour’s post-Brexit ‘reset’ plans is debatable.

Labour’s three pillars

Committee chair Lord Ricketts started the meeting by asking what, exactly, the government means by their oft quoted ‘reset’ of UK/EU relations. In response, Thomas-Symonds referred to Labour’s ‘three pillars’, as mentioned in their manifesto: security, safety and growth/trade.

Regarding the UK economy, the growth and trade commitments relate to government ambitions in just three areas: an agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and visas for touring artists. Along with government aspirations on security and safety, these are worthwhile goals. But how much impact would they have on the prime minister and chancellor’s growth plans, and just when can we expect to see progress?

This is a fair report. It was symbolic, and that does matter, given recent, ahem, history. And Reeves is right to say that next year is what matters in terms of substance. But many businesses have already been screwed. So urgency is needed.
news.sky.com/story/very-s…

[image or embed]

— Chris Grey (@chrisgrey.bsky.social) 10 December 2024 at 21:08

Meetings with Europe

In recent months, UK ministers have been travelling to Brussels to extend a hand of friendship to our European neighbours, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves. This week, the chancellor became the first UK finance minister to join her EU counterparts for a “very symbolic and important” meeting. At the meeting, Reeves acknowledged the harm that Brexit deal had wrought on UK/EU trade, but re-iterated Labour’s nonsensical ‘red lines’, ruling out freedom of movement and any return to the single market and customs union. Although the visit was good for optics, and hopefully for rebuilding trust, Reeves admitted that for substance, we would have to wait until next year.

In July, Thomas-Symonds had his first meeting with EU Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič. He told the committee he would now be meeting with Šefčovič at regular intervals – perhaps as often as twice a month in the new year. However, the most “important next step” would be in setting the date for a UK/EU summit in the first half of 2025. The summit will signal the start of official negotiations between the bloc and the UK

Looking forward

When asked by the committee what we can expect by the end of this parliamentary term, Thomas-Symonds said he wanted to “look forward, not back” with regards to UK/EU relations. He described the forthcoming summit, and ongoing negotiations as a “new phase”, though was vague regarding any specific plans.

The committee then asked specifically whether the ‘reset’ process would be completed before the next election. Thomas-Symonds replied that he certainly hoped so, and that “we will certainly be looking to deliver benefits from the ‘reset’ by that point”. The so-called anticipated benefits were not named. Let’s hope they prove less of a fantasy than earlier Brexit-related promises.

 

A concession on youth mobility?

Following the committee session on Tuesday, The Independent suggested that Thomas-Symonds had opened the door to a “major concession” in the Brexit ‘reset’ talks. Discussions of the EU’s youth mobility proposal began with the committee asking why the UK government had rejected the EU’s proposal on many previous occasions. The UK’s EU negotiator simply responded that it was “not in our manifesto”.

The proposed scheme – which would allow under 30s to travel and work more easily between the UK and EU – has long been on the EU’s wish list, with detailed proposals expected in a matter of weeks. Thomas-Symonds said that the government’s response would depend on precisely what the EU means by “youth mobility”, adding that the government were “not making any assumptions about EU asks”. We have, he said, to wait and see what the EU will “put on the table”. The EU, no doubt, are similarly waiting – patiently or otherwise – to find out what it is that the UK wants.

We can only hope that this government, unlike the last one, has a better understanding of how the EU works, and what is and isn’t possible within EU rules. As for whether Thomas-Symonds has opened the door to a major concession, see for yourself and make up your own mind. Just don’t hold your breath.

‘X’ turns dark, and the Sky turns Blue

‘X’ turns dark, and the Sky turns Blue

Dec 13, 2024 | Bylines, News

The move from X to Bluesky – a lesson on how progressives can take back control, Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton writes for Yorkshire Bylines. 

There’s been much made of the mass shift from X to Bluesky, and the reaction from the disruptors, abusers and far right has been telling. There is a sense of panic because they know something we don’t admit: we, the progressives, feed them, and that is where the opportunity lies.

Although not a new idea, if enacted en masse, it could be one of the most powerful weapons that liberal progressives have. It doesn’t need any billionaire oligarchs’ funding – but more about that later.

How X went dark

Since Elon Musk bought X (formerly Twitter), the social media site has been turned into a platform for abuse, misogyny, conspiracy theories and racism. It was the site’s fast-moving, second-by-second news and its ecosystems of like-minded individuals, organisations, and followers built up over many years that held people there, but now the vilest abuse no longer gets taken down, and people can post blatant, dangerous misinformation and outrageous lies with little or no comeback. Free speech on X means freedom to abuse, threaten and lie with impunity.

We are not talking about robust debate here or differing opinions. I have been a pro-EU, anti-Brexit, and equality campaigner for many years. I engage with social media personally and have tweeted for the pro-EU group Bremain in Spain for many years, continuously engaging with opposing ideas and conflict. Still, X has now gone well beyond this and everyday discourse.

Here is a post from Dawn Butler, a black female Labour MP – these are not one-off, rare comments. She exposes these weekly. Warning – extreme racist language.

You can be financially rewarded for abuse, disinformation and racism on X

Blue ticks on Twitter/X were once a sign of a trusted account. Twitter gave ticks to journalists and verified, trustworthy organisations. Now, anyone can buy a blue tick, which increases their engagement. Their replies float to the top of threads, and no matter the quality of a posts or response, they will be rewarded because they are paying Musk for the privilege. A paid account with 50 followers could get more impressions on a reply than one with 5,000. This system has created an unequal community.

Some users on X who spend their days sharing content that includes misinformation, misogyny, AI-generated images, and unfounded conspiracy theories are paid thousands. One man who was convicted of inciting racial hatred during the UK summer race riots was earning £1,400 a month from sharing his posts on X with his 90,000 followers. Imagine what Tommy Robinson gets with his one million followers.

A recent analysis showed that 74% of the most viral Israel/Hamas war disinformation posts came from ‘verified’ blue tick accounts. These people and accounts are radicalising minds with memes. It would be funny if it weren’t so deeply sad and dangerous.

Preach. The greatest danger to democracy has always been weaponized disinformation.

Why? Because "those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" – Voltaire

And no, free speech won't save us, Germans enjoyed free speech during the rise of Nazism –>

[image or embed]

— greenplanet.bsky.social (@greenplanet.bsky.social) 7 December 2024 at 04:37

The experience on X and Bluesky is like chalk and cheese. X is more like Donald Trump’s Truth Social, and Bluesky is more like the Twitter of old, as it was originally a research initiative within Twitter, with Jack Dorsey involved until earlier this year.

It feels like X but is fundamentally different. Bluesky launched in February 2023 as an invite-only service; however, it only started to take off after Trump’s election, garnering around one million users daily.

Whilst Musk, a self-proclaimed lover of ‘free speech’ who, after a Biden tweet outperformed his, had his posts on X boosted by algorithms to get 1,000 times more reach than anyone else’s (yes,his ego is that fragile), started corrupting the space with blatant misinformation. When this and interference exploded during the US election, it was a final straw for many. Even Musk’s artificial intelligence, Grok, labelled him as one of the leading spreaders of misinformation on the social media platform.

There is no debate, and there is no nuance. Often, replies are a stream of childish one-liners, bullying, derogatory remarks and, honestly, mainly downright stupid responses. It’s now a place where angry playground bullies, with little intellect but armed with grubby fingers and a keyboard, have been elevated above all.

X has become so bad that many organisations are leaving for ethical reasons. The Guardian were amongst the first, along with the Green Party and a surge of publishers . Bluesky doesn’t penalise link sharing, and publishers report 3- 4x higher engagement and conversions on Bluesky than on other platforms.

So, what can and should we do?

As much as possible, we need to starve those who have been elevated to their positions by supporting division, dehumanisation, deceit and racism, of the oxygen that enables them to push their political discourse, which, at its core, is intentionally constructed to inflame, anger and divide us as a society. Stop and remember that your interaction will bring them financial rewards and boost their engagement. Is that what we want?

All of us who use social media for campaigning know that crossing that divide and getting traction from ‘the other side’ gives us more reach and clicks.Well, it works the other way too. Without us, their spread and engagement would sink, and they would be left to preach in their hate bubbles, speaking only to their radicalised flock

Take on the media that platforms them

If we were to take this to the next level, we shouldn’t engage online with the media outlets that feature them. Let’s take the example of the BBC having Nigel Farage on Question Time for a record-breaking 38th time. Let’s face it: they don’t host him because of journalistic integrity, his intellect, or for balance, but because divisive people drive divisive commentary between opposing sides, and therefore clicks – and these days, it’s all about the clicks. BBC Question Time social media posts get the most traction from people who disagree with him being there in the first place.

Just look at the comments on this post (which include some you may find offensive). They are almost all from people who disagree with Farage being platformed again. The clips that are then generated from the show gain even more traction.

 

Take action, feel better about yourself

Bluesky has reminded us of how things used to be before the rage and division entered our politics. The users and abusers are not there in any numbers or with power. They can come but can’t get away with posting blatant misinformation, racism, misogyny or attacking the LGBTQ communities. We don’t miss them; everyone is saying how wonderful it is. The conversation is more intellectual, thoughtful and friendly, including disagreements. Here is where we find a calm reminder that things don’t have to be like they are.

Ignoring antagonists is, I know, easier said than done. I am guilty as charged when it comes to engaging with divisive characters like Tommy Robinson, Andrew Tate, Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, etc. I have written about some of them, and of course, some, including campaigners and journalists, need to stay informed of these people’s actions.

But I also recognise and admit I am emotionally triggered by abusive content and get drawn into calling out misinformation, racism, misogyny, lies, and corruption, all the while knowing and understanding that this is what certain inflammatory posts are meant to do. We are playing right into the hands of those seeking to provoke – becoming entangled in their game with their rules. Therefore the best thing to do is block or mute so you don’t even encounter the content in the first place. Ask yourself: “Am I responding to this because I am angry? Will my comment change anything or inform anyone’s opinion, or am I just boosting this post’s engagement?” 

When it comes to engagement with some of the more extreme followers of figures like Farage or Robinson; most of us know we aren’t going to change their minds. Those who have already fallen for what many would describe as their scapegoating and othering of minority communities can be very immune to alternative points of view – especially when expressed on social media

Our political environment is now consumed by rage and anger, and we must accept we are being played into fuelling it. By commenting, we will only drive engagement on such posts and cause an adverse emotional reaction in ourselves. So, give it a go. Block, mute, and disengage. It’s a guarantee that they will miss you a lot more than you will miss them and you will feel a whole lot better for it too.

A new APPG for a new era of European engagement

A new APPG for a new era of European engagement

Oct 25, 2024 | Bylines, News

The recent change of government offers hope of a new era for UK/EU relations and the launch of a new APPG, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

When the new Labour government came to power in July, they made the decision not to re-establish the European scrutiny committee. The committee – whose role was to scrutinise new EU laws, schemes and proposals, and the impact they could have on the UK – was now considered surplus to requirements. Thankfully, others had other ideas.

New APPG on Europe

This week a new all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on Europe – co-chaired by Dr Rosenna Allin-Khan MP (Labour) and Lord Kirkhope (Conservative) – met for the first time. The group’s aims are to “discover areas of mutual co-operation and interest” and examine the relationship between the UK and the EU. Whilst they won’t have the authority or status of a parliamentary select committee, they will have a voice, and one that hopefully the government is willing to listen to.

The APPG will meet six times a year, with European Movement UK (EMUK) acting as secretariat. Dr Mike Galsworthy, chair of EMUK said the new group would herald a “fresh new era of European engagement”:

“At European Movement UK, we’re delighted to be the secretariat supporting this important forum. EMUK was founded 75 years ago, in parliament, as cross-party group looking to advance the relationship of the UK with our European neighbours. So, having recently built up our staff team and capacity substantially, coming back to parliament to inaugurate and facilitate this important cross-party parliamentary group feels like both a homecoming and a fresh new era of European engagement.”

Lord Kirkhope said the government’s decision to abolish the European scrutiny committee, and its new approach to UK–EU relations, made the formation of the new APPG “crucial”:

“It will allow us to assess policies as they evolve and apply a positive, pragmatic approach to our relationship with Europe. We’ve bilateral ties with many European countries, but what’s been lacking is a broader, strategic view of our relationship with the EU as a whole. I’m confident this new group will play a key role in offering constructive input and help guide the government and others as we navigate this evolving landscape.”

The role of the APPG

Unlike parliamentary select committees, APPGs have no official status within parliament but are run by and for members of the Commons and Lords and may involve individuals and organisations from outside parliament. The involvement in this case of EMUK will no doubt ensure that the government’s “reset” of UK/EU relations is closely scrutinised, whether the government is in favour of closer examination or not.

Starting in January 2025, the APPG will meet bi-monthly, with each meeting focusing on a different topic. January’s meeting will focus on collecting evidence regarding security and defence. Future meetings will cover other policy areas including science, technology and trade.

“Encouraging sign”

When Foreign Secretary David Lammy recently visited Brussels to meet the council of foreign ministers, Lord Kirkhope said he was “very much encouraged”. Despite the fact that as non-EU members the UK “couldn’t fully participate”, it was a step forward to have been invited at all, and to have attended. Lord Kirkhope described the meeting as an “encouraging sign of a warming of our relationship with the EU” and said “important discussions about the future security of Europe” were being held.

Both the prime minister and the foreign secretary have been keen to point out the improvement in relations with our European counterparts, and the change is most welcome. What is less clear is what the government’s ‘reset’ plan is and how exactly they plan to “make Brexit work”. As Lord Kirkhope said recently, we “still don’t have any clear idea of what their European policy is going to be”. Hopefully, the government knows more than the rest of us.

UK–EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

When the Brexit trade and cooperation agreement (TCA) became effective in May 2021, it was supported by an inter-parliamentary institution – the EU–UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (PPA) – brought together from members of the UK parliament and the European parliament. With a new European parliament in place, the PPA has since been reformed on the EU side and a new chair, Sandro Gozi, was appointed on 3 October.

On the British side, no action has been taken as yet to appoint new members or to participate. However, Labour ministers have assured Lord Kirkhope that the government is “going to reappoint” and is going to “participate in this assembly”. With the TCA due for review in 2026, hopefully the government will do so soon.

The UK needs more than a ‘reset’

When Dr Allin-Khan was elected as chair of the APPG, she spoke of how the group would “build a positive relationship with our European counterparts, working on our shared interests and values”. Those are sentiments that even our prime minister and foreign secretary would presumably wholeheartedly support. Where they differ, I suspect, is in their willingness to confront the Brexit elephant in the room and to deal with the very real damage that Brexit continues to cause.

Despite changing public opinion and strong economic evidence, the government seems to think they know better than the financial experts warning of ongoing economic harm. Or they know the truth but are too afraid of the consequences of any remedial actions they might take.

Brexit needs to be scrutinised. From the loss of trade to the loss of rights. From the lack of workers to the lack of global authority. From the cost of food to the cost of inaction. The list is endless.

The launch of the APPG is a welcome move that should help parliamentarians and the public better understand and accept the realities of Brexit and the need for prompt action. For those who already understand Brexit yet do nothing, we can only hope that closer scrutiny will force them to ‘reset’ their own thinking and act accordingly in the interests of the country. Before too much more damage can be done.

 

 

Will the real Keir Starmer please stand up

Will the real Keir Starmer please stand up

Oct 9, 2024 | Bylines, News

In 2020 Starmer outlined a strong case for EU membership, for migration, and for the benefits of mutual freedom of movement – so what’s changed? Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE writes for Yorkshire Bylines. 

After 14 years of Tory incompetence, corruption and narcissism, the dawn of a new government this summer was a welcome and overdue relief. Having watched Keir Starmer grow in confidence and gravitas as leader of the opposition, I was delighted when Labour won the election and filled with hope for the future.

I always believed Starmer to be intelligent, principled and open-minded, and was looking forward to his much-publicised programme of ‘change’ and ‘growth’. Surely that would mean the abandonment of Tory austerity, a softer approach towards undocumented immigration and a return to socialist principles.

So far sadly, I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest my earlier optimism was entirely justified.

Achievements worthy of note

Whilst I can’t help but feel disappointed at some of Labour’s early decisions or policies, there is plenty to commend them for, in what is still a relatively short space of time. The early abandonment of the inhumane and costly Rwanda policy was most welcome, as was the swift and effective handling of the race riots.

A number of new bills have been put forward which will no doubt make a huge difference to the people of Britain, assuming, of course, they are passed into law. With Labour’s huge majority, that seems pretty likely. A few bills worthy of note are: renters’ rights, water (special measures), passenger railway services (public ownership) and Great British Energy. Other achievements include the settling of public pay disputes and the commencement of the Covid Corruption Enquiry.

An impressive list, all of which may positively influence Labour’s popularity further down the line, when the results of these efforts can be seen. But, right now, the prime minister, and the Labour Party, are suffering in the polls. As far as the public is concerned, the honeymoon period is over.

Starmer less popular than Sunak

In a poll conducted by Opinium for the Observer before the Labour Party conference, Starmer “has suffered a precipitous fall in his personal ratings since winning the election”. The PM’s personal approval rating plunged below that of former PM Rishi Sunak, dropping by 45 points since July. With 50% of voters disapproving of the job he is doing, and only 24% approving, his net rating is now -26%. Starmer’s fall in popularity has been echoed by a 36% drop in the approval rating of Chancellor Rachel Reeves, and a reduction in approval ratings for other senior cabinet figures.

While the public still consider the Tory government most to blame for the challenges the new government is facing, almost half of the public (45%) hold a more negative view of Starmer and Labour since they came into office. Labour may still be ahead of the Tories in the polls on most issues, but on the economy, their 10-point lead versus the opposition has been reduced to just 1 point.

James Crouch, head of policy and public affairs at Opinium said:

“Not only do the public feel worse off than they did before the election but concerns that Labour has focused too much on government finances rather than growth have almost wiped out their lead on the economy.”

A ‘reset’ for EU/UK relations

With economic growth at the heart of Labour’s manifesto, improving relations with our former European trading partners was obviously a good place to start. The optics were good, Starmer was welcomed in Brussels, Paris, Dublin and Berlin, and hopes were high for a new, cooperative and mutually rewarding relationship with the European Union.

Except for a few, not inconsiderable problems. Like Brexit – the perpetual elephant in the room. Most especially, Starmer’s incomprehensible and hugely damaging red lines on rejoining the single market, the customs union, or the EU itself. Then there’s the apparent delusional thinking that cherry-picking a few choice membership benefits would be acceptable to the EU, even as Starmer turns down the EU’s offer of a youth mobility scheme.

Starmer’s recent meeting with EU Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, was much hyped, and not insignificant. However, all that seems to have been achieved is an agreement to meet again next year and a strong reminder of the UK’s existing commitments post-Brexit. As von der Leyen stated, “we should explore the scope for more co-operation while we focus on the full and faithful implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, the Windsor Framework and the Trade and Co-operation Agreement”.

Will the real Keir Starmer please stand up

The state of the Labour Party before the referendum was a cause of concern for many, whether Labour supporters or not. The leadership of Jeremy Corbyn was particularly worrying to pro-Europeans, but Starmer’s enthusiasm for a second referendum was a bright spark on a dark horizon. As for his arguments in favour of immigration and freedom of movement, they were not only passionate, but compassionate too.

Starmer spoke of the need to make a strong case for migration and for promoting the benefits of mutual freedom of movement. Migrants, he said, must not be scapegoated for political failures such as a lack of jobs or affordable homes.

It was a moving and convincing speech. Watching it again now, it still is, and I believe Starmer meant every word. Which is why I’m left with one question.

Why doesn’t he believe it now?

Bremain in Spain at the National Rejoin March III

Bremain in Spain at the National Rejoin March III

Oct 5, 2024 | Bylines, News

Bremain in Spain members head to London for the third National Rejoin March, bringing the sunshine with us, writes Bremain Treasurer Helen Johnston for Yorkshire Bylines.

After endless days of rain in the UK, on Saturday 28 September the sun shone in London for the third National Rejoin March (NRM), and Bremain in Spain members were there to help remind the new Labour government that Brexit is still a disaster for the UK, and we haven’t gone away.

We joined our fellow marchers in Hyde Park, where crowds of people in blue carrying flags and banners were beginning to assemble. With an estimated 15,000 other marchers (unofficial Met Police liaison team figures) we made our way down Park Lane and Pall Mall, past Tommy Robinson supporters protesting in Trafalgar Square. They were outnumbered by anti-fascist protestors, and many, many times by us – although of course they received more press coverage, as ever!

Our march was peaceful and joyful, as always. Bremain in Spain chair Sue Wilson was among the familiar faces carrying the banner at the front, alongside other speakers including EMUK’s Mike Galsworthy, former Young European of the Year Madeleina Kay and Liz Webster of Save British Farming.

The march paused outside Downing Street for a rousing rendition of Ode to Joy, the EU anthem, and finished in Parliament Square for a rally with music, videos and inspiring speeches.

Inspiring speeches

Green MEP Terry Reintke spoke of the dangers of the rise of the far right and the threat of war from dictators like Putin. “As democracies, we have to work together to defend democracy, to defend a rules-based world. We don’t know what is going to happen in the US in November and that makes it even more important that the European Union and we as European citizens stay a strong voice globally for freedom, for democracy and for human rights.”

Sue Wilson’s speech was warmly received, too. To cheers she announced: “When I first stood on this stage to protest against Brexit in 2017, I said I was a proud European citizen who hoped one day to feel proud to be British once more. I’m not there yet, but I’m closer now than I have been in years, now we’re finally rid of the tainted, toxic Tories.”

Sue spoke about the importance of immigration for the UK, making it the diverse, tolerant country it is today, and providing the backbone to many industries and services. “And it works both ways, or rather it used to… It is thanks to Freedom of Movement that I am a proud immigrant living the dream in Spain, a dream now denied to so many. Brexit didn’t just steal our dreams, it stole our rights, our economic stability and our global standing.”

Sue concluded by calling on the government to go much further than just improving relationships with our European neighbours, if it really wants growth: “We were promised a reset. We were promised change. Well, we’re ready, we’re waiting, and we’re not going anywhere!”

Other speakers included Graham Hughes, host of the popular Politics Social podcast. He was the first person ever to travel to all 193 UN member states without flying. He spoke emotionally about how back then, his red EU British passport was the most powerful in the world, and how it would have allowed him to live, work, love, marry or retire in 27 EU countries. Thanks to Brexit it is worth much less now.

Many of the speakers called on the Labour government to acknowledge the harm done by Brexit and rethink its stance on Europe. Former Labour MEP, Richard Corbett, reminded us that “over 80% of the people in the House of Commons now, voted against Brexit: we’ve got to give them the courage of their own convictions”.

The cost of Brexit

Cecilia Jastrzembska, the president of Young European Movement, said she would like to ask those who still believe Brexit was the right thing for Britain, “If we rejoin today, what Brexit benefit would you miss the most?” Would they miss the benefit of Brexit red tape blocking our artists going on tour? Of trade restrictions suffocating our businesses? Of rising unemployment? The annual £40bn hole in our economy? Or the cost of living/energy/housing/prison crisis seeping into our lives?

Steve Bray also asked: “When Labour talk about this £20 billion black hole that the Tories left us, what about that £40 billion lost every single year, lost tax revenue from leaving the EU?” And Femi Oluwole pointed out that “we know that Brexit is a major drag on our quality of life. All the experts have made that very, very clear to us. And this Government knows that as well. They kind of wrote it into law.

“About a month ago they passed a Fiscal Responsibility Bill which basically means that everything they do has to be judged by the Office of Budgetary Responsibility. So, they can only do things that the [Office for Budgetary Responsibility] says we can afford. Well, the OBR also says that Brexit is costing the economy 4%, an equivalent of £100 billion a year, and £40 billion in tax revenue. So, according to their own laws they have to do everything in their power to essentially undo Brexit.

Media presence

The day was a great opportunity for Bremain in Spain to engage with the Spanish media and raise awareness of how Brexit has affected British citizens with homes in Spain. Sue was quoted in this article in El Mundo, which also features an interview with Bremain in Spain member Trevor Perfect, who flew over from Benidorm to march with us. We were also mentioned in articles in El Correo and by Spanish news agency EFE and I was interviewed by Spanish radio stations RNE and Onda Cero.

After the speeches, we headed to the pub to relax and network with friends and colleagues from the National Rejoin March team, European Movement UK, Grassroots for Europe and the many regional groups who had travelled from all around the UK to be at the march. We all agreed it had been a great success once again, all thanks to Peter Corr and his amazing NRM team, and yes, we will be back!

 

Gen Z overwhelmingly against Brexit

Gen Z overwhelmingly against Brexit

Sep 16, 2024 | Bylines, News

Prominent politicians may still believe in Brexit unicorns – a clear majority of the public, especially Gen Z, do not, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

The list of damage caused by Brexit is a long one, and one you are probably overly familiar with. Whether it’s the 4% loss of GDP predicted by the Office of Budget Responsibility, the barriers to trade, or the loss of our freedom of movement, or any number of other Brexit-related issues, the impact on the country and its people has been costly and painful.

The public are becoming increasingly aware of the impact of Brexit, and the most obvious solutions. Our government, on the other hand, seems increasingly intransigent on the subject, despite their promises of ‘change’ and a ‘reset’ of EU relations. In the face of public opinion, especially that of Gen Z – those born in the late 1990s, early 2000s – surely the current government stance is unsustainable.

Latest polling results

In the latest poll by Redfield and Wilton, 56% of the British public would vote to rejoin the EU, including 23% of those that originally voted to leave. When the question is asked of 18-24-year-olds – too young to vote in 2016 – the percentage in favour of rejoining rises to 61%. Hardly surprising when the youth of this country compare their rights, freedoms and opportunities to those enjoyed by their European counterparts.

Although the overall percentage of those wishing to rejoin has fallen by 5% since an earlier pre-election poll, the level of support from younger voters, and the not-so-young, cannot be ignored. Especially now that, for the first time, voters believe another referendum is likely in the next 10 years.

The prime minister may still insist that we are not rejoining the single market, the customs union or the EU, but how long can he cling to that irrational and unpopular position, especially if he wants a second term in office?

Falling popularity

Two different polls this week show approval for the government and the prime minister falling in popularity. The first, from YouGov, shows the government approval rating falling to just one in five people, with disapproval at 55%.

The second – a poll by Ipsos – showed a sharp fall in popularity for Keir Starmer, falling to a 46% unfavourability rating (32% favourable), matching the earliest lowest record, following the Hartlepool by-election. Chancellor Rachel Reeves scored 44% unfavourability with 23% in favour, with Labour as a whole on 45% and 36% respectively.

Whilst support for Starmer and Labour was unchanged amongst Labour supporters, non-Labour supporters were less positive. Those less loyal supporters, that Labour worked so hard to persuade pre-election, may not be so easy to convince next time around.

With only 37% of those polled believing Starmer is likely to win the next general election, and 43% saying he is unlikely to do so, surely someone, somewhere in government should be banging a few heads together and stating the bleeding obvious. Brexit doesn’t work, will never work, and we should be saying so right now. Out loud.

As to the future, 55% said the country was moving in the “wrong direction”. No doubt turning to face Europe, with arms and hearts open wide, would be, should be, perceived as the right direction.

 

Ditching the delusions

The majority of British people now believe that Brexit has been a factor – in many cases a significant one – that has affected the economy, business, trade, the NHS, and even threatens the union of our four countries.

Brexit may not be at the top of the public’s list of concerns – like the cost of living, healthcare, or immigration – but it’s almost impossible to ignore how Brexit has impacted those areas. Unless, of course, you are a staunch, delusional Brexiter, or a wilfully oblivious politician, still ignoring the elephant in the room.

Voters were misled, and they know it. Whether it was the blatant lies about funding for the NHS, that immigration would go down, or that we’d have free, cherry-picked access to the single market. Like many of the Brexiters, the public may not have fully – if at all – understood how the EU operates or what huge, cost-effective benefits membership brought. The Tories may still believe in unicorns. The public does not.

Following the election, we celebrated the demise of the Tories and welcomed the new government with feelings of hope and optimism. We tried to be positive because we needed to be, after 14 years of pain and suffering. But that optimism has turned to doom and gloom, and we’re still waiting for the much-hyped ‘change’. Brexit has already defeated several former prime ministers and a political party. If Starmer sticks to his red lines, he, and his party, could be next.