Labour on the attack

Labour on the attack

Apr 12, 2023 | Bylines, News

The success or failure of any ad campaign is based on it being seen and being talked about – in that, Labour have certainly succeeded, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

On 6 January, the Labour Party published the first of a series of campaign ads attacking the government for its many failures. The controversial ads have caused quite a stir, especially as they have been personally directed at Rishi Sunak.

The party of law and order

In the first of the hard-hitting ads, Labour attacked the prime minister for his failure to imprison 4,500 adults convicted of sexual assault on minors. This was followed a day later by the claim that 937 adults convicted of “possession of a firearm with intent to harm” also served no prison time.

 

Day three saw a continuation of the law-and-order theme – this time Labour’s claim was that out of 4,500 thefts committed daily, only 180 culprits would be charged. The title of ‘party of law and order’ – previously assumed by the Conservatives – is now firmly being claimed by Labour. They promise to “bring back neighbourhood policing” and are outlining specific details of the actions they intend to take to correct these government errors.

The latest ad switches the focus to taxation, with a direct dig at Sunak and his wealthy family. This comes on the back of recent revelations that Sunak only pays 22% tax on his total income, versus Keir Starmer’s 33%. Add to that the government’s refusal to close the non-dom tax loophole, and this is likely to resonate with many voters suffering the worst effects of the cost-of-living crisis.

 

A step too far?

Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood described the ad campaign as “belittling”, while John Redwood accused Labour of attacking the prime minister “for things he has not said or done”. Considering the theme of the ads is “Rishi Sunak does” or “Rishi Sunak doesn’t”, he may be rather missing the point, although that would hardly be news. Deputy party chair, Lee Anderson, accused Labour of “dog-whistle politics” – with not a hint of irony – suggesting it was a “step too far” and Starmer should clean up his act.

While it was hardly surprising that some Tory MPs were quick to criticise the campaign, there were plenty keeping silent on the subject. Perhaps the reticence was triggered by the recently published report that 88% of Tory ads were judged to be misleading, compared to 0% of Labour’s. Or it could be the memory of the Conservative Party’s own similar attacks on Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or even Starmer himself. Perhaps, though, it’s a sign of respect, tinged with jealousy, that Labour have stolen their thunder.

Criticism of Labour’s ads did not, however, all come from the political right. Within the Labour Party itself, John McDonnell MP described the ads as “not the sort of politics a Labour Party, confident of its own values and preparing to govern, should be engaged in”. The Labour Party, he added, “are better than this”.

Perhaps the worst response to the campaign came, unsurprisingly, from the Daily Mail who hired Maurice Saatchi to design six invented ads attacking Starmer. Copying the style and theme of Labour’s ads, one went as far as to ask, “Do you think that only men have penises?”, with the answer “Keir Starmer doesn’t”.

Labour doubling down

In response to any criticism, several Labour ministers have been quick to defend their campaign. Regarding the attack on Sunak’s record on crime, Starmer said he stood “by every word”. It was important, he said, to attribute the government’s failings personally to the prime minister. It was, after all, the PM that was “the chief architect of choices prioritising the wealthiest”, and “the voters must know that Rishi Sunak’s fingerprints are all over their struggling household budgets”.

Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting said that rather than be upset by the ads, “we should be more offended by the Tories’ shocking 13 years of failure to tackle crime than by Labour’s attempts to expose it and end it”. (Replace the word ‘crime’ with any Conservative failure of your choice)

Labour MP and chair of standards and privileges committee, Chris Bryant, voiced his own defence of the campaign on LBC Radio. He said attack ads were “valid” and described the campaign as “blunt” and “rude”, adding that it had “done the trick”.

Bryant also pointed out that any criticism of the ads was about the style, and the personal targeting of the PM, not about the “statistics”. We can only assume that the government have checked the veracity of the comments in the memes and been unable to disprove them, else they’d be screaming blue murder about Labour lies.

 

The gloves are off

Whether you are offended by Labour’s new approach, or applauding it, they are challenging the government in ways they will understand all too well. The campaign also makes it difficult for the government to complain too loudly without exposing their own gross hypocrisy. The Tories may be old hands at this type of attack but Labour have taken the gloves off and are beating them at their own game.

You may feel that Labour have sunk to the government’s level and that they should be setting a better example. Or you may think that anything goes in the battle to ensure Labour’s success at the next general election. Either way, you can be sure the Conservatives will use their usual dirty tricks, misdirection outright mistruths if they think it will work. And let’s face it, it’s worked in the past.

As with all ad campaigns though – whether you love them or hate them – their success or failure is based on being seen and being talked about. According to Labour insiders, the attack ads are a “triumph” – the original ad having already received over 22 million views. That’s more than any Twitter post in Labour’s history. Whatever the thinking was behind Labour’s campaign, they must surely consider the level of discussion generated to be a sure sign of a successful campaign. And they’ve barely got started. 

Give me back my vote!

Give me back my vote!

Feb 27, 2023 | Bylines, News

Millions of disenfranchised Brits living abroad care deeply about British politics and would like to have their vote back now, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

The Conservatives are in trouble. They are running scared and hoping we won’t notice. Millions of potential voters across the country, and further afield, are desperate to oust them democratically at the next election. The question is, will they let us?

 

Elections Act not all bad news

When the Elections Act became law in April 2022, it caused justifiable outrage, especially regarding new voter ID requirements. Supposedly designed to prevent voter fraud at the ballot box, it was a solution in search of a non-existent problem. As a result, millions of people are likely to be disenfranchised from voting, most especially the young. The fact that young people are less likely to vote Conservative may just be a coincidence. Or not.

But what the Elections Act took away with one hand, it gave back with another. Hidden behind the bad news was some good news for British citizens living abroad. For years the government pledged in multiple manifestos to return democratic voting rights to Brits overseas. The rule that excluded emigrants from voting in UK elections after 15 years abroad was finally being rescinded. British citizens living abroad would finally be able have their say at the polling booths. Well, almost.

More hoops to jump through for disenfranchised British emigrants

Before disenfranchised British emigrants are able to vote in forthcoming elections, secondary legislation is required. Until recently that legislation was promised this summer, with a view to restoring expatriate voting rights ahead of the next general election. However, the most recent correspondence from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) confirmed that the timing of that legislation has already slipped.

In recent correspondence, the DLUHC stated an intention “that legislation will be implemented to facilitate registration of eligible British citizens from Autumn 2023”. Many Brits abroad, anxious to take advantage of restored voting rights as soon as possible, will be questioning whether further delays are likely. That’s without their considerable concerns that necessary changes won’t be implemented in time for the next general election.

In order to vote, it will be necessary to register to do so and to be assessed for eligibility. According to the DLUHC it is also “imperative that voters and those who administer our elections have sufficient time to understand the new rules and to prepare accordingly”. So, no rush then.

To vote or not to vote

Ministerial responsibility for overseas voters has recently passed to Lee Rowley MP. His answers to questions in the House of Commons recently did not instil confidence.

With local elections just ten weeks away, MP Helen Morgan raised questions about the rollout of voter ID. In response, Rowley disputed the numbers of voters likely to be disenfranchised suggesting that many who were unable to vote wouldn’t have chosen to do so anyway. He added that the purpose of a democracy was for people to “have both the right to vote and not to vote”.

Millions of British citizens abroad, and young people at home, may well be desperate to exercise that right to vote but be unable to do so thanks to government actions, or lack of them.

 

Strong connections to the UK

When the restoration of overseas voting rights was first included in their manifesto, the government likely expected a grateful overseas audience to reward them at the next election. Post-Brexit, if they have any self-awareness at all, they’ll now understand that things may have changed. Many Brits living in Europe were hugely affected by the consequences of Brexit. Bad enough if you voted against it but intolerable if you were prevented even from doing that.

But the battle to have our voice in British politics has not just been with the government. There was also opposition from members of the British public suggesting those that chose to live abroad should have no say in UK politics. That message is still being heard, unlike ours.

Whether Brits back home like it or not, connections with the UK – even for those that haven’t lived there for years – remain strong. For many that connection is family. For others it could be work, property, taxes, pension, or even military service. For many it is deep routed feelings of identity. You can take the person out of the country, you can’t often take the country out of the person. Much as we might want to at times when witnessing the destruction of a country increasingly difficult to recognise.

 

Honouring Harry Shindler OBE

Whatever the reason for strong connections with the UK, it’s also about UK politics. Decisions made by the British government affect lives of all British citizens, regardless of where they choose to live. To have previously valued rights and freedoms taken away by a government we can’t even vote for, or against, is painful. Not to mention undemocratic.

Citizens’ rights groups all over Europe have campaigned tirelessly to enable disenfranchised Brits abroad to once again have their say in British politics. That campaign was started over 25 years ago by veteran campaigner, Harry Shindler OBE. Sadly, at the age of 101 years Harry died this week, unable to cast his British vote one last time. Though at least he did live long enough to see the law finally changed.

According to the government’s own impact assessment, there are over 3.5 million eligible British voters living abroad. It is up to all of us to keep up the fight until the last ‘i’ is dotted and ‘t’ is crossed. We owe it to Harry to finish the job he started and to use our votes to tell this government what we really think of them. They are probably not going to like it!

 

 

Secret Summit admits Brexit isn’t working

Secret Summit admits Brexit isn’t working

Feb 15, 2023 | Bylines, News

Was this secret summit the first tentative step towards reversing the unmitigated disaster that is Brexit? We can only hope, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for West England Bylines.
 

 

On Thursday and Friday last week (9-10 February), a cross-party ‘secret summit’ on Brexit was held at Ditchley Park in Oxfordshire. The meeting, which included high-level politicians from both Remain and Leave camps, as well as prominent businessmen, was so ‘secret’ that by Sunday it was all over mainstream media.

The meeting was entitled: “How can we make Brexit work better with our neighbours in Europe?” In an introductory statement, it was acknowledged that “so far the UK has not yet found its way forward outside the EU”. Not only that, but Brexit is “acting as a drag on our growth and inhibiting the UK’s potential”.

The news brought hope to pro-Europeans that perhaps, at last, politicians of all persuasions were willing to discuss the failings of Brexit, and our future relationship with Europe, with some openness and honesty. Brexiteers, on the other hand, were screaming “sell-out”.

Brexiteer response

Brexit-supporting backbench MP, John Redwood, was quick to complain on Twitter. “Instead of talking of sell-out at private conferences”, he said, “the UK establishment needs to complete Brexit and use its freedoms.” He added that the government should pass the Protocol bill to make Northern Ireland fully part of the UK and in order to “take back full control of our fish for starters”. Not sure what he had in mind for the main course.

Former UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, said the “full sellout of Brexit was under way”, adding that the Tory party had “never believed in it”. Deputy Chairman of the ERG, David Jones, said the fact that the meeting was held in secret raised suspicions that the aim was to have “closer constitutional links” with Europe. Let’s hope so!

Brexit is unravelling, says Frost

Despite walking away from his Brexit role, and taking no responsibility for his wonderful, then awful, Brexit deal, Lord Frost is never one to miss an opportunity to supply unwanted advice and comment. Again. Ad infinitum.

Frost accused those senior politicians taking part – such as Michael Gove, David Lammy, Peter Mandelson and David Liddington – of wanting to “unravel the deals we did to exit the EU in 2020” and to “stay shadowing the EU instead”. He said that the government, which had been elected with a huge Brexit mandate, needed to “fully and enthusiastically embrace” the advantages of Brexit, adding that “Brexit doesn’t need ‘fixing’”.

Despite his former – and now hard to believe Remainer – beliefs, Frost spends a lot of effort looking for ways to criticise those tasked with delivering Brexit. If he spent half as much time searching for mythical Brexit benefits, he might be more useful. Or at least, more muted.

The Downing Street position

A spokesman for Downing Street stated that PM Rishi Sunak had been unaware of the summit meeting held last week. It was a response that surprised no one as Sunak often seems ‘unaware’ of activities going on right under his nose. On a trip to Oldham, Sunak said he was “proud to vote for Brexit” and that, as PM, he was “keen to make sure we deliver the benefits”.  Whatever they may be. If he knows, he’s not telling.

With the UK and EU edging closer to an agreement, and Sunak saying little about his plans for the controversial Protocol Bill, no doubt Lord Frost, the ERG and Brexiteers will be watching him closely for further signs of “unravelling”. They are also pushing for the tearing up of thousands of EU laws, under the Retained EU Law bill.

Sunak may try to give with one hand and take with the other, in an effort to please all parties – not least US President Biden – over Brexit and the Protocol. But this will just further cement opinion that he is ineffective and indecisive.

 

What did the summit achieve?

If the meeting itself didn’t stay secret for long, the outcome of the discussions may take longer to surface. A confidential source described the meeting as “constructive”, saying that the “main thrust of it was that Britain is losing out, that Brexit it not delivering, our economy is in a weak position.” 

The aim was to move on “from Leave and Remain”, to discuss “the issues we now have to face” and how to get into “the best position” for having a conversation with the EU about changes to the UK-EU trade and cooperation agreement. That agreement is subject to renewal, revision or termination every five years. The current deal expires, and is up for renegotiation, in 2025, so getting into the “best position” soon is vital.

While it’s shocking that it has taken this long, the fact that Tory and Labour politicians – on both sides of the Brexit debate – are now having grown-up conversations (we assume), is a step forward. Considering the extensive and obvious damage that Brexit has wreaked, better late than never.

However, there is still a long way to travel. Despite the participants seeming acceptance that Brexit is failing, and a huge shift in public opinion, both Tories and Labour still seem to want to “make Brexit work”. They can’t.

They can tinker around the edges. They can work more closely with Europe where there is common ground. They can even work together to improve the Protocol. But they cannot “make Brexit work”.

Until there is a ‘secret summit’ to discuss re-joining the Single Market, the Customs Union or the EU itself, then they are merely offering a sticking plaster solution when what’s needed is major surgery.

Nice try. Good start. Now get on with it!

Bring back the death penalty says 30p Lee Anderson

Bring back the death penalty says 30p Lee Anderson

Feb 13, 2023 | Bylines, News

With our human rights already under threat, it’s difficult to trust a leader who believes Lee Anderson is the answer to any question, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Newly elevated deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, Lee Anderson, is no stranger to controversy. Whether he’s picking a fight with Steve (Mr Stop Brexit) Bray, suggesting food bank users have a “budgeting problem”, or using a friend to pose as a swing-voter on camera, Anderson is a dab hand at stirring up trouble. And he seems to rather enjoy it.

Anderson was promoted in Rishi Sunak’s recent reshuffle, leaving many surprised, if not astounded, by the prime minister’s decision. With Sunak’s credibility already being questioned, Anderson’s advancement only raised more doubt about the prime minister’s judgement. Perhaps, considering Anderson’s latest comments regarding the death penalty, Sunak himself is now having second thoughts about the wisdom of his decision. If he isn’t, he certainly should be.

 

“100% success rate”

In an interview with The Spectator, Anderson expressed his support for the reintroduction of the death penalty by saying that “nobody has ever committed a crime after being executed”, describing it as a “100% success rate”. His comments forced the prime minister to note that neither he, nor the government, shared Anderson’s view and a return of the death penalty was not government policy.

Anderson went on to say that “certain groups” (presumably left-wing wokerati types) would complain that “you can never prove it”. He suggested that video evidence was strong enough proof to warrant an execution. It was an argument that fell apart on the appearance of a doctored video of Anderson himself confessing to a crime on social media, proving how easily video ‘evidence’ can be manipulated.

 

It’s the ‘will of the people’

Fellow Conservative MP and death penalty supporter, Scott Benton, was quick to defend Anderson’s stance, by suggesting that it was a policy “supported by a majority of the public”, as well as many of his Blackpool South constituents. Not only were the “liberal elites”, the media and Twitter “detached from the public” but any outcry was an example of the “usual leftie hysteria”.

 

Whilst I can’t speak for Benton’s constituents, it is certainly not true that the majority of the British public are in favour of the death penalty. In a recent YouGov poll, only 14% of Britons showed strong support for the death penalty, with a further 26% tending to support, making a total of 40%. Amongst Conservative voters, that total rose to 58% support in total. By comparison, amongst Labour voters, support fell to just 23%.

There was also a vast difference in levels of support dependent on age, with only 22% of 18–24-year-olds supporting capital punishment. For the over 65s age group, support rose to 54%. If Benton is to be believed, then presumably his constituents are elderly Tory voters yearning for an England that no longer exists, and that should be consigned to history. Along with his views on capital punishment.

 

No defence for the indefensible

Arguments commonly used in favour of the death penalty – usually in the case of murder – are that it serves as a deterrent, it provides closure for the families of victims and that it dispenses justice, of the biblical eye-for-an-eye variety. However, these arguments do not hold up.

According to Amnesty International (and others), there is no evidence to support the argument that the death penalty deters crime any more than long prison sentences. In addition, states that have a death penalty – often those with authoritarian regimes – do not have lower crime or murder rates than those that do not.

Even within the most vigorous of legal systems, miscarriages of justice do happen, and innocent people have, and still are being, executed. The other compelling argument against capital punishment is that it is simply morally wrong. Taking a human life is completely unethical and sets a bad example to society.

 

The global view

According to the Death Penalty Information Centre, 70% of nations have now abolished capital punishment. However, 60% of the world’s population live in countries where the death penalty is retained, including the highly populated China, India and the United States – the only G7 country to still have the death penalty. In 2021, 579 executions were recorded – a increase of 20% over the previous year. The highest numbers of executions took place in China, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria (in that order).

Our own Human Rights Act (HRA) came into force in October 2000, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic British law. Article 2 of the HRA protects the right to life and states:

“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law.”

 

But the Human Rights Act, which protects many other basic human rights as well as the right to life, is currently under threat from justice minister and deputy PM Dominic Raab. His ‘bill of rights’ has been described by Liberty as a “wrecking ball” which would “smash your rights and freedoms”. Maybe Sunak should have a word, if he can work up the nerve.

We have come to expect a certain dangerous rhetoric from our government of late – in particular from the Home Office. So, it’s hardly a stretch to believe there might be more death penalty supporters lurking in government behind Anderson and Benton.

With a government that seems drawn to authoritarianism, and with many rights and legal protections under threat, we need to be vigilant.

Our right to life may not be under threat, but it’s increasingly difficult to trust a prime minister, or government, that believes Lee Anderson is the answer to any question.

Looking for a well-paid job? Be an MP!

Looking for a well-paid job? Be an MP!

Jan 23, 2023 | Bylines, News

Send in your application now. Never will you get a better chance to grab what’s rightfully yours. Sue Wilson MBE, Bremain Chair, writes for Yorkshire Bylines.

As the UK faces a severe shortage of labour and skills, 80% of small firms are struggling to recruit suitably skilled staff. With 1.19 million vacancies across the country, perhaps there has never been a better time to be a job-seeker. Assuming, of course, that you have the right skills for the job, and the remuneration and benefits are sufficient for your needs.

Whilst a career in healthcare, social care, hospitality, construction, farming or logistics might appeal, there are other opportunities becoming available that you might want to consider. With more vacancies likely to appear in the coming months, have you ever considered a career in politics? It pays well, comes with generous expenses, and rules that apply to ordinary folk can – it would seem – be broken with impunity.

 

Remuneration

First, let’s talk pay. As from April 2022, the basic pay for a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons is £84,144 per annum. Compared to average UK earnings of £33,000, that’s none too shabby. But the good news doesn’t stop there. Not only can you expect an above-average pay rise each year, but you get to vote on it yourself. No nasty bosses trying to supress your wages, and your real bosses – the British public – have no say at all!

The size of the remuneration package alone is impressive, but there’s another big difference between MPs annual income and the UK average. The Office for National Statistics figures are for a full-time job. MPs, on the other hand, don’t all work full time, with many able to hold down other lucrative employment, and not discouraged from doing so.

 

Generous expenses

In many jobs where employees are required to travel, claims for petrol, transport, even taxis are the norm. Overnight stays require reimbursement for accommodation and meals and are par for the course for your average sales rep or business person. As an MP, however, you can expect so much more.

While subsidised lunches are not uncommon in certain industries, few can rival the offering, or the prices, available in the House of Commons dining room. And we’re not talking about a simple soup and sandwich. We’re talking ribeye steak, smoked salmon or lamb loin. Yes, please! Though you might have to watch your calorie intake, you won’t have to worry about the prohibitive cost of fine dining affecting your pocket.

But that’s not all. You can also claim rent for accommodation in London, even if you don’t live very far away, and claim for heating costs. At a time when the country is suffering an energy crisis, rest assured that as an MP, you won’t need to worry about spiralling electricity or gas bills.

 

There appears to be no limit to how much, or for what, MPs can make an expenses claim. In the year ending 30 September 2022, the amount claimed by MPs was £135,810,637.87 for a total of 123,858 claims, and it’s not untypical for a single MP to claim hundreds of thousands of pounds on expenses. In fact, if it’s allowed, why wouldn’t you?

Historically, it has also been possible to claim for the most bizarre of non-political expenses, such as the heating of one’s stable. Ah, but I don’t have any horses or a stable, you say. Well never mind. Once you’re an MP you’ll probably be able to afford both!

 

Fringe benefits

Of course, not all the benefits of being an MP are financial ones. A benefit to many a rough diamond is the ability to be able to hold down a well-remunerated job whilst also being rude, offensive, and in some extreme cases, even downright creepy with your staff. Although there are, of course, appropriate policies and procedures in place to protect employees – likely due to some over-zealous HR type – these seem to be largely ignored, or at least, worked around.

But, there’s more. If you fancy a bit of rule-breaking, you can be secure in the knowledge that rules that apply to ordinary people may not apply to MPs. Or even to Cabinet Ministers or PMs! Fancy not wearing a seat belt? No problem – just pay the fine. Forgetting to pay your taxes? Cough up and stay out of jail. Telling mistruths to parliament? De rigueur. And if you’re short on ideas, there are plenty of colleagues with previous experience that’ll be only too happy to share their rule-bending tips while promising honesty, integrity and accountability.

There’s one final positive about seeking work in Westminster as opposed to a similarly demanding role in the non-political world, and that’s your previous experience. Or lack of it. Whilst any existing skills and experience would, of course, be useful, they are not a pre-requisite. Even cabinet ministers can acquire their even better paid roles without having the relevant qualifications. A doctor as health minister or an economist as chancellor? What a daft idea.

Of course, there are MPs that work extremely hard, that represent the needs and wishes of their constituents, and that challenge the strategy, rhetoric and policy of those in charge. They do so with considerable energy, grace and commitment, and in the face of considerable abuse and at great personal cost. The country would benefit enormously if there were far more like them.

However, as long as MPs are able to earn, and to claim, such vast sums of money, and are seemingly able to break rules that apply to others, then Westminster will continue to attract those only in it for themselves.

So, send in your application now! Never will you get a better chance to grab what’s rightfully yours!

Are we framing Brexit from the wrong perspective?

Are we framing Brexit from the wrong perspective?

Jan 13, 2023 | Bylines, News

As UK public feeling shifts back to a pro-European stance, is it time to positively charge the nature of the conversation? Bremain Chair Sue Wilson writes for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Although it has taken far too long to materialise, Brexit is finally up for discussion. Endless tales of Brexit damage now fill the media, even of the right-wing variety. Polls now regularly show that the public have not only turned against Brexit, but are increasingly in favour of a return to the single market, the customs union, and even the EU itself.

That change in public opinion has come about without any benefits of EU membership even being mentioned. Not only that, but public support for Brexit has fallen away despite blatant governmental mistruths about our abilities to act as an independent nation over, for example, the vaccine roll-out or support for Ukraine.

The fact that the public and the media can now clearly see the elephant in the room is progress, and welcome, even if it hasn’t yet trickled down to our parliamentary representatives. But any talk of Brexit now follows an ill-advised path, that of fear, doom and gloom. It has become a negative story of damage and failure, and it’s eerily reminiscent of the underlying negativity (albeit prophetic) of the cross-party Remain campaign.

 

Project Fear

The pre-referendum approach taken by David Cameron’s government and their pro-European allies in the opposition – labelled as ‘Project Fear’ by the Leave campaign – was a failure waiting to happen. Not only did the government fail to grasp the nation’s desperate desire for change, but their pessimistic campaign provided little factual information about the EU itself and, crucially, very little hope.

What was missing then, as now, was any celebration or explanation of the benefits of our 40-year long relationship with our friends and closest neighbours. Instead, the Leave campaign mendaciously persuaded the majority of the voting public that any benefits were nothing to do with the EU, or at the very least, would not be lost when we left.

 

EU achievements and tangible benefits

Before Brexit, most people’s knowledge of the benefits of EU citizenship was sketchy at best and misinformed at worst. Having since experienced the loss of many valuable rights, their absence has made our hearts fonder. We better understand now how little we knew of the EU and how much we took for granted.

Less familiar still, were the key achievements of the European Union, as they see and promote them. The list of the EU’s four key achievements on the European Union website is no doubt the envy of democracies across the globe:

  • A continent in peace
  • Freedom for its citizens to live, study or work anywhere in the EU
  • The world’s biggest single market
  • Aid and development assistance for millions of people worldwide

Peace and stability

The foremost achievement of the EU has been decades of peace across the continent. Following World War II, Western European countries sought closer political ties, with the aim of achieving economic growth and military security. Decades later, Europe has now seen “70 years of lasting peace” – the longest period in its history.

In accordance with this unbroken “peace, stability and prosperity”, the EU continues to foster “democracy, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law – across the globe”. As a result, it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012.

The war in Ukraine has proved the value of collaboration and cooperation with our neighbours for the benefit and security of all. Ukraine is now en route to becoming an EU member itself, having been granted “the status of a candidate to accession” in June 2022. No doubt the people of Ukraine understand only too well the benefits that EU membership will bring.

 

The single market

Where other benefits of EU membership may not be as well understood, the benefits of single market membership are more widely appreciated, even by Brexit supporters. In fact, many prominent Brexiters regularly assured the public that the benefits of single market membership would still be ours outside of the EU.

The single market allows for four freedoms of movement – of goods, services, money and people. Even some staunch Brexiters appreciate the value of the first three. However, the free movement of people was painted as the cause of unacceptable (to them) levels of immigration. Thanks to the likes of Nigel Farage and his toxic ‘breaking point’ poster, EU citizens, along with the EU itself, were effectively ‘othered’ in the eyes of some of the public.

 

Nobody is making a positive case for immigration

If there is one benefit of EU membership that’s crying out for a positive political campaign, it’s immigration. ‘Taking back control’ of our borders and reducing immigration was a rallying cry of the Leave campaign. The fact that before the referendum the British public did not appear to have a problem with EU citizens coming to the UK to live, work or study, didn’t factor into their thinking.

Apart from ignoring the positive aspects of EU immigration – on our economy, trade and culture – taking back control of our borders has not worked. Although EU immigration is down since Brexit, net migration numbers are now reaching record levels at over 500,000 in 2022. This at a time when businesses are begging the government to make it easier for them to employ staff from the EU.

Not only does the UK need migration from the EU, but we desperately need to change the dialogue. EU citizens have had a positive impact on our economy, trade and culture and have been our family, friends, colleagues and neighbours, for decades. Our country needs a return to the days of friendship, cooperation and tolerance – qualities we used to be proud of and which were the envy of the world.

 

The loss of freedom of movement affects us the most

Whilst it’s incredibly sad and damaging that EU citizens are leaving the UK, or have stopped coming, they at least are left with other options. EU citizens still have their freedom of movement across Europe, can move around with ease, and are welcomed with open arms.

UK nationals, on the other hand, have lost the automatic opportunity to live, love, study, work and retire in 27 EU countries. It’s not impossible to move to the EU post-Brexit, but it is considerably more complicated and expensive and no longer an option for everyone. For example, those relying on a UK state pension as their sole source of earnings would no longer meet the income threshold for retirement in Spain.

Not only is it more difficult to plan a life in the EU, but over 2500 Brits that had already made that commitment are now being expelled and sent back to Blighty. It would rather seem as though the EU are better at taking back control of their borders than the UK appears to be.

Recent polls tell us that Brexit is no longer the “will of the people”. That pervasive idiom was used by politicians as justification for the hardest Brexit possible, and should it go horribly wrong, either the public at large, remain supporters, or the EU were to be made the obvious scapegoats.

Whether Brexit ever really was the will of the people is highly debatable. What isn’t debatable is that Brexit no longer has public support, even if our politicians refuse to accept the facts.

It’s high time we all took a fresh look at Europe. Whether it’s gradually increasing our engagement with our neighbours or a full-on campaign to become EU members again, it’s time to be honest about the benefits, rights and opportunities that we threw away.

The public and some voices in the media are beginning to shine some light on the reality of post-Brexit Britain. Sadly, in Westminster, burying heads in the sand is still in vogue.

Brexit denial and fear is as strong in political (and some media) circles as it ever was. It’s time to inject some truth, hope and optimism into the discourse and build progressively toward a more positive future for all.