Bremainers Ask ….. Election Special

Bremainers Ask ….. Election Special

Jul 31, 2024 | Bremainers Ask, News

This month we asked six former Bremainers Ask contributors to comment on the election. Here is what they had to say.

Nick Harvey

 Nick Harvey – CEO European Movement UK

Pro-Europeans can view the election of the new Parliament and Government through either a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty prism. I prefer the former.

Yes, we would all have preferred Labour not to be elected with red lines drawn against the customs union, single market or ‘rejoin’ – though experts tell me those would barely have been feasible in the first term anyway.

 But we have seen the new PM totally reset the relationship with Europe at the Blenheim summit, the new Foreign Secretary start talks about an ambitious UK-EU security agreement, and the first King’s Speech signal an enabling bill to allow ‘dynamic alignment’ with evolving EU regulations.

It is a great start.

Beyond these, EMUK has a shopping list of things the new British Government could do in the next few years to rebuild relations with the EU – some unilaterally, some by negotiation, some by improving the 2020 deal – but none breaking their self-imposed red lines.

High priority is a veterinary/food deal, along with dropping Tory ideological objections to the ECJ and playing divide-and-rule between EU states. Revisiting citizens’ rights would help – easier access to UK universities and for agricultural workers, a youth mobility scheme and performers’ visas. Co-operation is needed on energy, crime and justice, medicines supply and critical raw materials. We should join the Pan-European Mediterranean Convention.

We also need greater regulatory alignment and to avoid divergence by mirroring VAT and carbon border adjustment mechanisms, and keeping up with EU rules on pharmaceuticals, chemicals, pollution, and emissions. Rejoining EU agencies like Euratom, Erasmus+, the Environment Agency, and the Medicines Agency’s ‘open partners’ scheme would help. And a huge prize would be regulatory equivalence in financial services and mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

There is plenty to keep them busy – and if we make substantial progress on these sorts of things, the entire relationship will get to a very different place. Each time the British public sees its government sit down with our EU neighbours and resolve an issue though a mutually-beneficial solution – and proudly proclaim the outcome – we will gradually detoxify and normalise discourse about the European issue.

If that happens, then by the end of this Parliament we could be in a very different place in terms of what manifestos might say in 2029, and what possibilities could open up in the second term.

Of course, we are all itching to go faster. But the country is not. The wounds from 2016-2019 are deep, and collective PTSD endures. Labour and Lib Dems knew this and judged their 2024 pitch deftly.

The mistake now would be to cut and run for ‘rejoin’ too soon. Our step-by-step approach must continue, and with a new Government will gain momentum. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time…

 Gina Miller – True & Fair Party Leader

With the Labour Party celebrating its decisive win at the general election, the new Government has hit the ground running, fulfilling their promise to act from Day One. However, policy announcements so far lack the depth and details needed to repair the damage inflicted by the Tories over the past 14 years.

One crucial issue the Labour government must address is Brexit, which was never about our country’s needs but rather the infighting within the Conservative Party. With the election behind us, it’s time to confront Brexit head-on. Brexit has robbed us of more than political alliances; it has disrupted our connection with our European neighbours. Remember spontaneous weekends in Paris, ease of importing and exporting, especially for SME businesses, or studying in Germany or Italy? These weren’t just luxuries for the wealthy, but tangible ways ordinary Brits worked, lived, loved and made us feel part of a vibrant community.

Keir Starmer’s recent speech detailed his aims to tackle the UK’s skills gap, proposing plans to boost the economy, reduce immigration, and achieve greater social mobility. However, addressing skills gaps created by Tory policies while linking this to significantly lower immigration is both unrealistic and misleading in the medium term. Reducing our reliance on overseas workers will take time. Currently, many UK sectors require a transitional workforce to function.

Our NHS, struggling with a shortage of nurses and healthcare workers, sees 47% of its staff considering leaving. Dental care faces similar shortages, with plans to increase training places by 40% not coming to fruition until 2031-32. In the interim, how will these gaps be filled? Starmer rightly spoke about reforming education, but great education requires great educators. His focus on modernising the curriculum for the digital age is vital, yet we face serious shortages in core subjects like physics, maths, geography, and modern foreign languages.

Social services vacancies undermine efforts to aid the 4.3 million children living in poverty in the UK, and there is a need for more youth mental health services staff. The construction industry, essential for infrastructure projects and housing plans, struggles with a shortage of skilled tradespeople. The agriculture and food sector, as well as hospitality, face similar workforce crises, affecting service quality and business operations. Brexit has devastated workforces and productivity across almost every sector. The reality is that we need comparatively high levels of immigration in the short to medium term, and Europe provides a nearby, culturally aligned source.

Klaus Welle, former secretary-general of the European Parliament, indicated that Brussels would welcome an “honest attempt” by the UK to reset the relationship. This is what Starmer must do at the upcoming UK-EU Summit, and propose:

  • A UK-EU defence and security pact.
  • Easing trade tensions in agriculture and pharmaceuticals.
  • A 5-year Visa Scheme for sector-based freedom of movement for workers.
  • Rejoining data-sharing agencies.
  • Re-entering the Erasmus scheme for students.
  • Greater collaboration in the energy sector.
  • Linking the British carbon emission trading scheme to the EU’s new Carbon Border Adjustment.
  • Harmonizing AI and digital sector regulations.
  • Re-establishing full UK access to the EU’s Eurodac system to monitor and return migrants.

The EU might be tough, claiming a lack of capacity to negotiate, but the UK is important to the EU’s unity.  In his first 100 days, Starmer’s government should clearly outline the benefits of free movement of labour, services, and capital between the UK and Europe.  A bold strategy to exit Brexit will allow Starmer and Reeves to take back control of the economy.

The pandemic has masked the full extent of Brexit’s damage, but all indices show Brexit is a major factor in the UK economy shrinking since 2016. An eight-year strategy to repair the damage would help in regaining our status of “Great” Britain.

As we enter the 2030s, a decade predicted to be one of accelerated change, Starmer’s leadership will be crucial in fostering unity with Europe against geopolitical instability and the climate crisis. This period calls for courage and vision to support the idea of a “European family” of justice, mercy, and freedom, once envisioned by a bold UK Prime Minister. Such a unified approach is vital for regaining the simple joys and hopes that make life worth living, for the Brits and Europeans alike.

 Professor Anand Menon 

Brexit barely figured in the recent general election campaign. On one level, this is easy to explain. The electorate are no longer that concerned about relations with the European Union – the issue does not figure among the top ten issues for the British public. On the other hand, there is something of a paradox. A Labour Party that prioritized growth above all else simply refused to countenance the kinds of closer relations with the EU (notably single market membership) that might actually have a significant economic effect.

 Looking forward, what we can expect, I think is twofold. First, a distinct warming in the tone of the relationship. This has been apparent already in the dealings the new Government has had with its European partners. At the same time, however, there will be real limits to any substantive progress in altering the nature of the UK-EU relationship. 

Certainly, both sides are anxious to secure a security deal of some kind. Early indications, however, suggest the UK will struggle to convince the EU either to define ‘security’ as broadly as London would like (to include issues like supply chain security, climate security and even migration) or to allow UK access to EU schemes intended to bolster cooperative defence-related R&D projects. 

When it comes to the economic relationship, the new Government’s demands are, on the one hand quite limited – a veterinary agreement, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and measures to help touring musicians ply their trade. On the other, in all these cases, agreement might not be as easy to achieve as some seem to assume. In each, not only will negotiations take time, but there are legitimate questions about whether the EU will have an interest in a deal (veterinary agreement) or whether what the UK is asking for is extremely complicated and hard to achieve given current EU rules (touring musicians).

In sum, the Labour government will ensure that the UK-EU relationship is no longer seen in competitive zero-sum terms in the way it was under Boris Johnson. The tone already is improving. However, substantive progress will be hard to achieve, and, on the economic side, nothing the UK has suggested will make a real difference in terms of growth. Readers might disagree about whether this constitutes a way of ‘making Brexit work.’ But it does point to the fact that, even under a relatively pro-European Government at the head of a  huge majority, the fundamentals of Brexit are not about to be questioned. 

 Professor Chris Grey

Britain’s new Labour government has already made rapid progress in improving the tone of the UK-EU relationship. That matters in itself, given what has happened since 2016, but it can also be expected to yield substantive improvements. These won’t take the form of a single ‘new Brexit deal’, but could occur in various areas, within various timescales, and through various forums. The kinds of things we can expect include a wide-ranging security and defence pact, and a veterinary agreement.

 I think there is no prospect of the Government changing its pre-election ‘red lines’ on rejoining the EU or the single market, or creating a customs union treaty. Doing so would immediately throw the entire administration into instability, and politics into chaos. However, it seems likely that the Tory red line of refusing any arrangement which involves a role for the ECJ is now dead. If so, that opens multiple possibilities for cooperation, and participation in EU programmes.

It’s sometimes suggested that Labour’s plans are based on ‘cherry picking’, and as such will be rejected by the EU. But this isn’t true. Much of what they intend was pre-figured in the Political Declaration which accompanied the Withdrawal Agreement, only to be ditched by Boris Johnson. Other things, like a veterinary agreement, have in principle been offered by the EU in the past. 

So, there are genuine, if relatively small, improvements which can and should be agreed and, crucially, the dynamics of domestic politics have totally changed. That is because all the pressure from within the governing party will be to push the front bench to go further, and get closer, to the EU. By contrast, even the tentative steps taken by Rishi Sunak, such as the Windsor Framework, met internal resistance.

There are also things the government can do without any EU agreement. These include maintaining regulatory alignment by limiting deliberate, ‘active’, divergence and by tracking changes in EU regulation to avoid ‘passive’ divergence. I very much hope that the government will also resolve the growing scandal of the operation of the Settled Status scheme for EU nationals in the UK, including by providing a paper document to demonstrate that status.

Almost as important as any improvements made to ‘Brexit 1.0’ is the fact that Keir Starmer has robustly rejected any possibility whatsoever of a ‘Brexit 2.0’ of derogation from the ECHR. This has now become an article of faith to many Brexiters in the Tory Party and elsewhere. 

Whether, under their next leader, the Tories formally adopt such a Brexit 2.0 policy remains to be seen. But, even if not, unless or until they recognize the folly of Brexit 1.0 there is little prospect of it being reversed, even if the UK tried. For until there is a durable cross-party consensus for reversal, the risks for the EU of yet another change of policy, under a future government, would be too great. In that sense, for now, Labour’s much less antagonistic and very slightly softened Brexit is the only game in town. 

 Liz Webster – Founder of Save British Farming

The General Election 2019 delivered a spectacular wipeout of most of the Brexit MPs who have dominated and Remainers have railed against for over eight years… but where is the jubilation?

This week in the Commons we were treated to a debate dominated by MPs who are asking the urgent and pertinent questions about Brexit which continues to blight Britain, the EU and the rest of the World. However, the only person who pointed this out was Nigel Farage, who claimed in his maiden speech as new MP for Clacton that he and his Brexit bandit chums are outnumbered in a remainer/rejoin parliament. This was missed by most, probably because we are exhausted and bored of Nigel droning on

The enormity of this win isn’t obvious to many, because Brexit was ignored in the election, it was the “Brexit elephant in the room” election. Brexit was only discussed on the sidelines and mostly by the foreign press, in astonishment at Britain’s Brexit-elephant-in-the-room election syndrome.

In many ways, there were parallels between the GE and the Labour leadership election after GE19. Starmer won by straddling both wings of the party, there was no jubilation following his victory, but he ruthlessly shaped the party to become a winning machine which has made historic gains, and now they hold significant power which can transform Britain.

I don’t know about you, but I feel many of us are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, having been captives of the right-wing Brexiteers for over 8 years. In fairness our freedom was really won thanks to Keir Starmer meticulously keeping the receipts on Boris Johnson’s rule breaking in number 10. It really was removing the key populist that saved us, and consigned the Tories to the doldrums.

So having been so lost to anger, fear and anxiety since Gordon Brown lost in 2010, I am determined to enjoy some optimism. Some of it may prove to be misplaced, but I can’t allow my spirit to be lost to pessimism.

I decided to back Labour when they committed to negotiate a Veterinary Agreement with the EU. This always meant that the aims of Brexit to deregulate and a ensure a race to the bottom in standards was not supported by Keir Starmer’s Labour Party and was very much putting an anchor down to stop the Brexitanic achieving a disastrous USA FTA. And now Labour have gone further, laying out in the King’s Speech new laws which will make it easier for the UK to align with EU rules. The biggest danger of Brexit was always divergence, which to date has only happened when the EU diverged, as Britain became paralysed by disagreements about what Brexit means.

So now the Brexitanic is secured, and the Brexit pirates largely thrown overboard by a sensible majority of Labour MPs. Last week, the new DEFRA secretary, Steve Reed, confirmed they are committed to ditching the worst trade deals in history negotiated by the worst PMs in history, Johnson and Truss. This means the Brexitanic is sailing back to Southampton, she has sustained significant damage, but hasn’t sunk in the Atlantic and I, for one, am determined to help get her home. I’m not going to stop campaigning until we rejoin, but I now sense that rejoining the EU is inevitable.

 

 Lord Chris Rennard MBE

The Government agenda was clearly set in the King’s Speech. Its top priority is to drive economic growth, which is seen as essential to restoring public services. The campaign showed that no party wants to ask taxpayers to pay more during a cost-of-living crisis. But no party had the courage to say that low economic growth and the cost-of-living crisis are partly the result of Brexit.

 On immigration, the parties also swerved away from pointing out that the Brexiteers signed a deal without a returns policy or that ending freedom of movement within the EU has substantially increased levels of immigration, as people from further afield generally stay longer and also bring their families.

The election was an absolutely crushing defeat for those who brought about Brexit. The former constituencies of David Cameron, Theresa May, and Boris Johnson are now all held by the Liberal Democrats.  Liz Truss lost to Labour in the seat which she won with a 26,000 majority in 2019.  Many people will feel that they got their “comeuppance”, with polls showing that most people now think that Brexit was wrong.

But how can we begin to reverse it?  Incremental changes in the right direction are already being made.  But it will take greater courage and more time for Keir Starmer to use his advocacy skills to explain that aligning ourselves again with our neighbours is in the interests of our own economy.  He must also explain that this will be best done by us having a proper say in the rules, requiring membership of the Single Market.  Perhaps a 2029 Manifesto commitment?

Re-joining the EU will probably also require the adoption of Proportional Representation, which has had the support of the Labour Party members in recent years. I doubt if we could be re-admitted without ensuring that the U.K. would not adopt a “Hokey Cokey” approach to membership in future. Tony Blair’s biggest mistake after 1997 was not moving on electoral reform. This led directly to the Brexit referendum and what was later called the decade of chaos. Labour must be ready to move in their next Manifesto. These measures would attract widespread support and encourage co-operation with all the sensible opposition parties.

 Next month

In August, we are especially delighted to welcome our very first MP to Bremainers Ask. Stella Creasy is the Labour MP for Walthamstow and has held a variety of positions within the Labour Party.  Currently, she is the Chair of the Labour Movement for Europe and has been a staunch advocate for maintaining a relationship with the EU. 

If you would like to put forward a question for Stella for consideration, please email us no later than Thursday 8 August. 

Tories: unfit for office, unfit for opposition

Tories: unfit for office, unfit for opposition

Jul 22, 2024 | Bylines, News

Based on the evidence so far, it seems the Tories are as unfit for opposition as they were for office – and they only have themselves to blame, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

On 4 July, the Conservatives suffered their worst election defeat in history, with a loss of 250 seats. After 14 years in power, and with his party way behind in the polls, Rishi Sunak called a snap election. The resulting disastrous campaign did nothing to change the government’s fortunes or their standing with the British public. Their time was finally up.

For the beleaguered party, the best that could be hoped for was a rejection of far-right policies and that lessons might be learned. Recent behaviour in the Commons by certain shadow cabinet ministers would suggest that they haven’t learned a thing.

“Constructive opposition”

Last Friday, new appointees were added to the shadow cabinet by Sunak, bringing the total number of shadow cabinet ministers to 51, or 42% of the total number of Tory MPs. Such is the dearth of MPs and ministers that 10 of those new appointees are being tasked with two or three different roles.

If the British public had been expecting better parliamentary behaviour from the Tories in opposition than in government, then we had set our sights too high. While many shadow cabinets ministers are new to the role and could be forgiven for failing to understand parliamentary rules and customs, it is those more experienced members who are causing discord in Westminster.

The worst examples of recent bad behaviour were to be witnessed during a speech by Environment Secretary Steve Deed. Steve Barclay, the shadow environment secretary, was critical of Labour plans for on-shore wind farms. Barclay said that the government planned “to take vast amounts of farmland out of food production in order to prioritise the eco-zealotry”. During his response, Deed denied a number of interventions from front-benchers Barclay, Kemi Badenoch and Victoria Atkins. Badenoch and Atkins, did not take it well.

Abominable behaviour

While Badenoch may have had a dig at Reed during his speech, it was Victoria Atkins, shadow health secretary, that took bad behaviour to another level. Standing at the despatch box, she repeatedly spoke over the environment secretary, breaking the Rules of Order and Decorum in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. The rules state that when a member is addressing the house, “no other Member may interrupt except to raise a question of privilege which has arisen suddenly or to raise a point of order”.

The behaviour was widely criticised by MPs, and eventually, by the deputy speaker, Christopher Chope, who said Atkins had “behaved abominably”. A response later supplied by Atkin’s office said she was merely “trying to get answers”, as if the ends had justified the means.

Badenoch, bad enough

In the debate that followed the King’s speech Kemi Badenoch, shadow levelling up secretary, launched an attack on Deputy PM Angela Rayner from the despatch box. In a speech that has been described as “patronising”, “disgraceful” and “unprofessional”, Badenoch told Rayner that she had been “stitched up” and made a “fall guy” by the Labour government. She offered to “hold her hand” at this “very difficult time”, and said she looked forward to telling Rayner “I told you so” when the new government repeated the mistakes of the old one.

The recent behaviour of both Atkins and Badenoch – although hardly out of character – has fuelled speculation that, yet again, their focus is on their own political careers, rather than the needs of their constituents. The fact that they believe this kind of behaviour is going to improve their chances in the race for leadership of the party just proves once more how detached they both are from the wishes and needs of the British people.

Tories lacking leadership material

Despite the drop in electoral support for the right-wing European Research Group – down from 107 to 24 MPs – the candidates for Tory leadership are predominantly from the right/far-right of the party. And despite the fact that moves to the right only damaged their election results, they seem determined to repeat the same mistakes.

For some, that move ever closer to Reform UK Party Limited, has resulted in them abandoning the Conservative Party altogether. Suella Braverman – twice relieved of the position of home secretary – is rumoured to be planning to defect to Reform UK, perhaps having accepted that the role of Tory leader is not within her grasp. She wouldn’t be the first Tory MP to defect to the party (sorry, company), or likely the last.

At a time when world leaders, and the British public, are welcoming a change of tone and attitude in Westminster, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer is as popular as Boris Johnson ever was, the Tories are still clinging to old, failed ideas.

It was clear during the election that they were fighting the wrong battles. They focused on trying to retain the attention and support of those on the right/far-right while ignoring the much bigger threat from the centre/left, and it cost them dearly.

The often-tetchy Sunak now seems far more comfortable is his new role than in his previous one. When he first appeared in the Commons on the opposite side of the House, he promised the Tories would “fulfil our duties as the loyal opposition, professionally and effectively”. He may have even believed it, or at least hoped that someone, anyone, in his party would take note and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Based on the evidence so far, it seems the Tories are as unfit for opposition as they were for office – and they only have themselves to blame.

Nigel Farage’s history of incitement and violent rhetoric

Nigel Farage’s history of incitement and violent rhetoric

Jul 20, 2024 | Bylines, News

Farage blamed Trump’s attempted assassination on Democrats’ rhetoric, yet he’s no stranger to using the language of violence himself, writes Bremain vice Chair Lisa Burton for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Nigel Farage laid blame on Democrats’ rhetoric for Donald Trump’s attempted assassination attempt. Yet, he is culpable in creating a political sphere where violence, incitement and threatening behaviour are commonplace.

A fish rots from the head down

Political violence, threats and incitement are sadly becoming more common in today’s political sphere. Drip fed into our politics for over a decade and driven by our media’s fascination with divisive political players like Farage and Trump.

Incrementally, they and other antagonists went further and further as they pushed the boundaries of everyday political discourse and language. The more outrageous, divisive and hyperbolic they became, the more coverage they got. In turn, the political sphere has become more divided, angry, inflamed, and threatened. All this has been amplified and aided by social media, misinformation, dark money, often foreign, and Russia’s hybrid warfare.

When politicians get away with it, the public follows

The constant scapegoating and blaming of minorities and migrants for all the woes of their countries is deeply concerning to many. Grown-up, sensible debates about migration, primarily fuelled by capitalists’ requirements for constant economic growth, are almost impossible. Many on the more liberal, progressive side of politics feel the language heard from the hard right is dangerous and reminiscent of the demonisation of Jews and other minorities in 1930s Germany. The language does indeed have very similar connotations.

Divisive, fear-driven politics has become mainstream from the right as they have shifted to a type of hard-right populism that only functions around division, fear and wedge issues, whether that be migration, climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, or abortion. This has caused a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety on both sides of the political spectrum for differing reasons and has led to an environment where people are constantly made to feel angry and inflamed. The extremes of this can be seen on social media daily

Farage has often used the language of incitement and political violence

Not known to miss an opportunity for self-promotion, Farage was quickly on the job as he spoke to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg after the attempt on Trump’s life, saying, “The narrative put out there about Trump, by these liberals that oppose him, is so nasty… it almost encourages this type of behaviour”.

Farage has a very selective memory. He is by far one of the most divisive politicians the UK has ever seen, and he himself has used violent and threatening language on several occasions.

Instead of being shunned by the media, he became one of the most covered people in UK politics. Including being platformed an incredible 36 times on BBC Question Time

In this BBC interview before the Brexit referendum he said that “violence is the next step” if people feel that immigration is not being controlled and that voting doesn’t change anything. He then said it was “difficult to contemplate” it happening in Britain but added, “nothing is impossible”.

 

Farage is clever with his words. He knows how far to push and when to retract, and this rhetoric is intentional. His words have an aura of wishful thinking, and this is not the only example.

After the Brexit referendum, at an event where people paid to hear him speak, Farage was recorded saying:

“If they don’t deliver this Brexit that I spent 25 years of my life working for, then I will be forced to don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines.”

He also stated at the same event, “there will be widespread public anger in this country on a scale and in a way we have never seen before”.

In 2019, Farage was investigated by police (not charged) after multiple complaints about his comments in a speech he made in Wales. Talking about his frustrations over Brexit not happening fast enough he referenced the “overpaid pen pushers in Whitehall who are not doing a neutral job” and said “and once Brexit’s done, we’ll take the knife to them. Alright? Had enough of all of it. Had enough of all of it”.

The ‘take the knife’ remark by Farage was made just a month after a civil servant in his 60s was stabbed outside the Home Office. The Judge at the time stated, “This was an unprovoked, serious violent attack on a stranger, apparently on the basis that he worked for the Home Office”.

Threat to the judiciary

In 2016, business owner Gina Miller was the main plaintiff in a case that held the government at the time accountable for its attempts to ride roughshod over the British constitution and parliamentary sovereignty over the triggering of Article 50, which would start the process of leaving the EU. Farage made Brexit all about sovereignty, yet the executive’s moves were anti-democratic and denied parliamentary sovereignty.

Farage, however, wasn’t happy and threatened to lead a crowd of 100,000 protesters to Parliament Square and within earshot of the courthouse while the case was underway. The Welsh government’s top lawyer, Counsel General Mick Antoniw, at the time called for UKIP group leader Neil Hamilton to “disassociate himself from the comments that were made by his acting leader Farage who said they would be leading a march of 100,000 people to the Supreme Court, and that people were so angry that there might well be violence arising as a consequence … That, all I can see, is an attempt to intimidate an independent judiciary.”

The march was crowdfunded but never happened. The judges, however, faced intense backlash.

Sometimes, incitement comes without words

On 16 June 2016, just days before the Brexit referendum, Farage released, and stood in front of, this grossly inappropriate image, which garnered widespread condemnation from the media. It was denounced by left and right-wing politicians alike, and it was reported to the police that it incited racial hatred and breached UK race laws. The photograph used was of migrants crossing the Croatia-Slovenia border in 2015, with the only prominent white person in the picture obscured by a box of text. Many made the connection to images Nazis had used in their programme of fear and propaganda

Just hours later, Jo Cox, a Labour MP who supported inclusion, diversity, and remaining in the EU, was murdered in the street by a far-right terrorist, Thomas Mair, who shot her twice in the head and stabbed her. According to the eyewitness, he did so while saying, “Britain first, keep Britain independent, Britain will always come first”. Finally, he yelled: “This is for Britain.” Police found his room ‘stuffed’ with Nazi memorabilia and multiple links to far-right groups, including Americans.

Farage was unrepentant about the poster.

Take a stand

The assassination attempt on Trump was shocking. No matter your politics, we on all sides must reject violence, particularly political violence. But the fact that we often refer to ‘all sides’ tells us a lot too. There should be no ‘sides’ when it comes to our public servants and leaders. They are there to serve ALL the people, not just those who support them.

The populist far/hard right relies on discourse and rage creation to flourish. It’s all about us vs them. While it is impossible never to get angry and upset with what can often be cruel, deceitful and bigoted rhetoric, it’s up to all of us to reject all forms of threatening or political violence. Let’s try to live by the words of Michelle Obama:

 

“When they go low, we go high.”

The hypocrisy of Tommy Robinson and his fans

The hypocrisy of Tommy Robinson and his fans

Jul 6, 2024 | News

A squalid tale of grift and dishonesty as ‘Tommy Robinson’ is detained for immigration offences yet again, writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Last week, Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, the far-right activist, was arrested in Canada for an ‘outstanding immigration warrant’ after speaking at an event in Calgary. Within an hour, a fundraiser was launched in his name, not for the first time, to help him out with his many run-ins with the law.

His team filmed his arrest, with Robinson heard telling the officers in the police car: “Ain’t it mad how tough you get with immigration on the wrong people?”, “F*** Justin Trudeau” and “It’s mental innit. You act like absolute spineless cowards as a country, letting every bloody goddamn f**ing Abdul or whoever into your country – you don’t know nothing about them, their criminal histories, or anything, or their ideologies”.

It is a bit rich considering this wasn’t the first time Robinson has faced charges of immigration offences, and he has a lengthy criminal record, which bars him from entering many countries. In 2013, he pled guilty to trying to enter the United States illegally by using a friend’s passport. It’s just one of Robinson’s criminal convictions, amongst others for passport offences, mortgage fraud, contempt of court and assault. He’s served jail time on more than one occasion.

What the paperwork shows

What was different this time was that Robinson himself posted his immigration arrest documents online, which showed some curious anomalies. According to these documents, his name is Stephen Lennon, and not only is he an Irish citizen, but they also state he was born in Ireland.

Considering Robinson prides himself on English nationalism, is an anti-immigrant campaigner, and rallies against the criminal behaviour of people he deems ‘migrants’, who are often British-born people of colour, the double standards seemed to be obvious. So I posted the form on X with a comment.

The post took off and incredibly gained over 2.2 million impressions, driven mainly by a mass frenzy of his supporters who were unwilling to see or just blind to the fact that it is ok for their criminal idol to break immigration laws or to lie to illegally enter a country, to be an immigrant with a criminal record, all while demonising migrants, and many he categorises and migrants, even though they are British-born people who by their heritage don’t have the ‘privilege’ of being white.

Born in Ireland or England?

Now, it’s no secret that Robinson’s mother was Irish and his father is English. So, he is wholly entitled to an Irish passport, as are many with Irish ancestry. This was the main shouting point of many of his followers who didn’t quite understand the ‘born in Ireland’ hypocrisy. Because what’s really interesting is that Robinson has always said he was born in Luton, England, and he is English. He confirmed this in an interview article in the Telegraph from 2013 and on other occasions.

Below is a birth registry document for November and December 1982. You can see the entry for Stephen Christopher Yaxley, born in Luton. He later became Yaxley-Lennon to reflect the name of his stepfather, Thomas Lennon. Sometimes, he also goes by Stephen Lennon. However, in 2018, a judge reported at this hearing that his legitimate passport bears the name Paul Harris. Confused yet?

Of course, we don’t know the details of his current British passport. And there’s always a possibility that the immigration officers in Canada made an error on the arrest paperwork, and he has not yet been to court, but it’s unlikely. Robinson has form for entering countries where his criminal record would bar him from doing so, and he was heading to Canada for a tour.

Still, we can all agree it is not customary to have multiple names for no reason unless you’re trying to hide something. This leads us to conclude that this passport and identity confusion is deliberate. One passport states he is an Irish national and citizen, born in Ireland, and his name is Stephen Lennon. The other passport has a different name and we must assume, from his birth records, that it would state he is a British national born in Luton.

The most likely hypothesis is that he uses different passports to try and get past immigration officials and to avoid revealing his criminal convictions or previous immigration offences.

The hypocrisy doesn’t stop there

Research tells us that the majority of grooming gangs are white. However, there is far more manufactured outrage around sexual exploitation if the person or persons are of a minority background, and Robinson and other actions of the media have ensured that fallacy perpetuates.

He says he’s an advocate against sexual violence and exploitation of women and girls, particularly from grooming gangs (only if they are brown-skinned, of course). He is not. He has a long history of failing to condemn the abuse of children by his friends and supporters. Something, when pointed out to his sycophants, they also choose to ignore.

As reported here, “The EDL was a hotbed of sex offenders”. At least 20 members and supporters were convicted of child sexual exploitation offences (that we know of), and at least 10 of these were in the EDL while Robinson was still leading it. In June 2010, Lennon’s close friend and ally, Richard Price, was convicted of making indecent images of children. Far from condemning those crimes, the EDL launched a campaign for his release.

Leigh Mcmillan, a senior EDL figure during Lennon’s time as leader who was active in the Lee Rigby campaign, was sentenced to 17 years after abusing a 10-year-old schoolgirl 100 times in the mid-1990s. The list of offences is shocking and can be read here. No condemnation has been noted from Robinson regarding any of these cases.

Robinson has also defended Andrew Tate, the online media personality who is currently facing charges of rape and people trafficking.

Like all far-right ideologists, his support for illegal behaviour from his own tribe is typical behaviour. Blame others. Say it’s all a conspiracy. It gives them a blank card to deny everything and to corrupt all truth and evidence. It’s a vital part of their playbook, no matter how unhinged, and Robinson sounds completely unhinged.

Robinson, the Brexit supporter

Robinson campaigned for Brexit and received financial, political, and moral support from a wide array of foreign groups and individuals, including US think tanks, right-wing Australians, and Russian trolls. He campaigned for the end of freedom of movement while obtaining or already having an Irish passport, knowing he would never have to give up his freedom of movement. It is also rumoured that he lives in Spain.

There’s nothing wrong with that, his supporters would say. Of course, they would. Foreign interference when it backs their far-right causes is welcome; Obama speaks up about Brexit, and all hell breaks loose; but they have no issues if their false idol has the opportunities he wanted to deny his fellow compatriots

Bethan Nodwell exposes Robinson’s behaviour in Canada

Tommy Robinson went to Canada to ‘go on tour’, and Bethan Nodwell, a right-wing political activist, was going to assist him. So often, we see people willing to overlook alleged wrongdoing.

 

She alleges Robinson was drunk, taking cocaine, and went to massage parlours. She makes implications related to Robinson’s apparent hypocrisy as a proclaimed defender of women and girls. “If you are doing drugs with prostitutes, you aren’t defending women.” “Who are running these brothels […] who are they exploiting? Like marginalised, maybe some white girls, some minority girls.” “You’re actually betraying us; you’re betraying my girls.”

In the clip above, she also alleges that Robinson says he had sold no tickets for his tour and said he “was going to get nicked”, which she ties to getting money from his supporters. Robinson has subsequently denied these allegations.

Robinson is no patriot

So, there we have it laid out. Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, aka Stephen Lennon, Tommy Robinson, Paul Harris or any other name he goes by, is a hypocrite of the highest order. A common thug and criminal who uses his ‘Englishness’ as a weapon to fuel racism, bigotry and the persecution of minorities while milking his supporters and relying on foreign money to fund his lifestyle and politics.

He is a dangerous individual whose organised marches often end in violence, including violence against the police, like with the Cenotaph demonstrations he initiated then ran away from last year, where the protesters chanted “you’re not English any more” at officers and attacked them.

With luck, the UK and Irish authorities will look into these anomalies, and who knows, maybe one of them will deem him to be a danger to the country, just like the British government did with Shamima Begum on national security grounds. She only had British citizenship, Tommy many names has at least two. He can take it.

Bremainers Ask… David Henig

Bremainers Ask… David Henig

Jun 28, 2024 | Bremainers Ask, News

A leading UK authority on international trade policy, David Henig is Director of the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE), where he examines the economic and trade implications of Brexit and broader UK policy. He writes regularly for Borderlex, serves as an Expert Adviser to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee and advised the former UK Trade and Business Commission.

Until March 2018 David was a trade specialist in the UK Government, including 3 years on TTIP talks, establishing the Department for International Trade after 2016 and coordinating work on major international bodies such as the OECD and G7.

David Eldridge: What should be the top priorities for the new government?

Behaving like a normal, competent government would be a good start across a lot of policy areas. Listening to a broad range of experts rather than just those sharing a narrow ideology would be an improvement. There are so many interlinked issues of public services and the economy that need fixing, and upping the rate of growth is so important to tackling them. Regulatory stability would be a great place to start: rather than creating uncertainty in goods, at least we should link to the EU. This would provide an incentive for investment. Removing barriers to trade in the neighbourhood is complementary to this. Then there are the sensitive domestic issues directly linked to growth, of which overseas students is the largest – we really should be taking advantage of being an attractive place to study, not complaining that people want to come to the UK.

 

Steven Wilson: How sustainable is the prospective new Labour government’s attitude towards Brexit?

In the first instance, seeking small steps towards improving the EU relationship isn’t just sustainable, it is essential. Our negotiating legacy since 2016 is toxic in Brussels, and there is a need to build trust that the UK will actually negotiate in good faith and keep commitments. Within Labour’s red lines of not rejoining the single market or customs union there is more that can be done beyond the manifesto commitments of a Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) deal, professional qualification recognition (actually very hard to achieve), and help for touring artists. Joining the pan-Euro-Med convention on rules of origin will help supply chain participation, and the EU wants a youth mobility scheme. A security agreement seems very likely. There’s more to be done on energy. Start to put all this in place first, and then I think there will then be a conversation on whether that is sufficient, or we need to revisit red lines or the referendum. I don’t think there is a way to short-cut this process.

 

Anon: Without rejoining the single market, does Labour have any hope of turning around the UK economy?

All countries have domestic policy choices that affect their trade and therefore economic performance, and the UK deciding to put up barriers to nearby markets is a handicap, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be fatal for economic performance. For example, there are sectors that are less affected, such as financial services, education or defence, and large companies are able to overcome barriers more easily. There is a scenario where we focus more on these to limit the economic damage, but of course there are also issues with these areas. We could also promise investors a level of stability while staying outside the single market, such as on regulation, and combine this with being generally more open to outsiders and neighbours and striking as many deals as we can across Europe. However, in general we are certainly making all of this harder for ourselves by giving our companies higher barriers to overcome than their counterparts in other countries.

 

Ruth Woodhouse: In terms of trade deals, to what extent do you believe Keir Starmer will, or should, give greater priority to negotiations with the EU than with the rest of the world?

Thanks to replicating trade deals that we were a party to as EU members, we have good coverage around the world. The priority therefore has to be to improve what we have in our own neighbourhood, not just with the EU but also Switzerland and Turkey, where we have active negotiations. By and large Free Trade Agreements alone do not significantly shift the economic dial, as they mostly benefit large commodity exporters facing high tariffs, which isn’t where our trade specialisms lie. What we should be looking for is deeper arrangements such as regulatory alignment and mutual recognition, plus whatever we can on services, and this is more likely with others in Europe. We should also stop fixating on a US trade deal, even before they were withdrawing from trade, they did not tend to give other countries many advantages.

Lisa Burton: European Movement’s newly released ‘Manifesto on Europe’ asks the government to implement a detailed assessment of the impact of Brexit. What did you think of the document overall?

With the exception of the commitment on a detailed assessment of Brexit, which I don’t think is best carried out by government, other suggestions in the Manifesto seem broadly sensible and consistent with the general idea of improving relations as the obvious next step. Membership of regulatory agencies is a particularly sensible step, and builds upon the success of the UK remaining within the European standardisation community, an unheralded but really significant achievement for the British Standards Institution (BSI) which required extensive work with the UK government and various EU bodies at a time when relations were not good. I think such bodies will have to decide in the next few years whether to push outright for rejoining the EU, or to seek either a Customs Union or single market as a ‘halfway house’. I think there are drawbacks with all options but, until that debate can be had, then Brexit will continue to be something of a hidden subject.

 

Matt Burton: How far could regulatory alignment with the EU go in reducing trade friction at the borders?

By itself, regulatory alignment does not reduce trade friction at borders, though it has an immediate benefit in that companies trading between the UK and EU do not have to meet two sets of regulations. Committing to similar regulations does open up the possibility of reduced or eliminated barriers subject to negotiations on mutual recognition agreements, which for food and drink products, which are always subject to the greatest level of inspections, could be significant. There isn’t a standardised form of such agreement, and hence it is hard to say exactly what may be included, but in general it should at least be possible to remove some frictions. This isn’t, however, an automatic process, and to even start such a negotiation there needs to be trust that both sides are committed. In general, industrial goods are subject to fewer checks than agricultural ones, but reducing barriers will still be helpful.

Tory wipeout or comeback?

Tory wipeout or comeback?

Jun 21, 2024 | Bylines, News

Apparently, all the Conservatives need to turn this around is an opportunity to make their arguments – and some policies – and a magician! Bremain Chair Sue Wilson writes for Yorkshire Bylines. 

I doubt it will have escaped your notice but there’s an election happening soon in the UK. If the polls are to be believed – and the results across multiple sites would suggest they can – then the Conservatives are about to suffer an almost complete wipeout. Or in the words of polling guru, Professor John Curtice, the results would be the worst ever “by a country mile”.

Polls apart

In a new poll by Savanta and Electoral Calculus for The Telegraph, Labour are predicted to win 516 seats and a massive 382-seat majority, with the Conservatives and LibDems neck-and-neck on 53 and 50 seats respectively. If that weren’t bad enough, Rishi Sunak is predicted to lose his own seat – a feat never before accomplished by any prime minister at a general election, and quite the personal legacy. Other big names are also at risk of losing their seats, including Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and numerous cabinet ministers.

Two other polls released on the same day – by More in Common and YouGov – have the Conservatives on 155 and 108 seats. Better, but not by much. And whichever way you look at it, a disaster for the government on a monumental and historic scale.

The collapse in popularity of the government could be down to any number of factors: the pain and damage of austerity; changing public attitudes to a mis-sold Brexit; cronyism and chronic waste of public money; mishandling of, well, just about everything they’ve touched, or directly down to Sunak and his colleagues. The list is a long one, and it’s still growing.

 

There’s still time…

But, all is not yet lost, it seems.

While the public, the media, and quite probably most of parliament can see the writing on the Conservative wall, Levelling Up Minister Michael Gove has other ideas. According to him, there is still time to stage a comeback and to pull a rabbit out of the hat in extra time. All that’s needed, apparently, is “an opportunity to make these arguments” before “the final whistle”. And some policies. And a magician.

Gove’s arguments, it seems, amount only to warning voters of Labour’s “tax dangers” and their “plans for the future”. In that respect, he would appear to be on the same page as Sunak and many government ministers, in that their election campaign is all about Labour’s plans, not their own. Not to mention the fact that much of the public seem to quite like what Labour are selling.

Former Brexit negotiator Lord Frost, however, does not share Gove’s optimism. The Conservative Party, says Frost, is “hurtling towards a terrible defeat” because the party is not “doing Conservative things”. Frost also warned that Labour would drag Britain back into the “orbit” of Brussels by renegotiating what Keir Starmer described as Boris Johnson and Frost’s “botched” deal. Again, no sign of any ideas or policies of their own, just more criticism of the opposition.

What Gove, Frost, Sunak et al fail to understand is that hardly anyone trusts them, or believes a word they say anymore. As for suggesting that Labour will increase taxes for the less well off, that’s more than a bit rich coming from the “biggest tax-raising parliament on record” and a bunch of out-of-touch millionaires to boot.

Whether you believe the Conservatives are heading for a wipeout or a comeback, Frost and Gove have something in common – a strong tendency towards delusional thinking that came to a head with Brexit and shows no signs of fading.

The Oxford English definition of ‘delusion’ is “a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary”. There’s plenty of incontrovertible evidence that the Conservatives are going to lose, and lose badly. Those within the party that believe otherwise deserve to be nowhere near positions of power. Thankfully, in two weeks’ time it looks like they won’t be.