We asked six former Bremainers Ask contributors to tell us their hopes and fears for 2026. We are delighted to share insights from three of them:

Naomi Smith FCMA, Chief Executive Best for Britain

2025 was a geopolitical marathon for Britain, and for all of us working to rebuild the EU-UK relationship. There were false starts, stumbles and a couple of blow outs. We may be in a lot of pain, but that shouldn’t distract us from what was achieved in the slog, not least the fantastic news confirmed during the home stretch – that UK students will soon be participating in Erasmus+ once again. As we welcome the new year and lace up our running shoes again, we should be hopeful that we can do even better while remaining clear-eyed about the immense challenges that await.

I’m hopeful that this year will see more concrete progress on the areas of EU-UK cooperation set out in that EU-UK summit in May, many of which were first proposed by the UK Trade and Business Commission – organised by Best for Britain. Despite optimistic timeframes set out by Ursula von der Leyen, last year it became clear both sides were moving a lot slower than originally hoped, with meaningful negotiations on many key issues only really getting started as leaves turned orange.

The UK Government has pinned hopes of reducing high consumer prices on striking an agreement with our largest market on food standards and energy. These must come next year, but to make a difference that people can feel, this must only be the start. We need broader EU-UK alignment to ease trade friction and thereby reduce costs across the entire economy. Crucially, 2026 must also see the EU allow the UK and our advanced defence industry access to the SAFE rearmament fund. For the two sides to flounder on this critical issue of defence, in the same week that Putin and Trump were verbally carving up Ukraine, was shameful.

Increasingly, it looks like agreement on a Youth Experience Scheme is the key to unlocking all of it. Following our own recommendations to bridge the gap on outstanding issues, I am optimistic that we will see it confirmed this year, restoring opportunities and valuable cultural exchange to young people and communities across Britain – forging long lasting ties and boosting British soft-power.

The fear we should all have is if either side allows myopic political concerns to derail progress towards these goals. Nowhere is this a greater risk than in our collective action against Putin’s aggression and, unfortunately, nowhere is this more likely. It was the story throughout 2025. Any continued failure of the EU and UK to act in concert will only embolden the dictator, already boosted by a White House now openly hostile to Europe.

Another pothole is the local and Senedd elections in May. Many predict that a likely poor Labour showing will spark a cannonade of leadership challenges against Starmer, with reports suggesting many campaigns are at advanced stages of organisation. The rancour threatens to derail the crucial EU-UK Summit also scheduled for May, although there is a chance it could act as a stimulant rather than a blocker, as Starmer’s challengers tack more pro-Europe to court the Labour faithful.

Zoe Gardner, UK immigration and asylum policy campaigner

We enter 2026 in a dark and dangerous political time. The far-right controls the narrative on immigration, and the supposed centrists have apparently given up the fight, with the Labour government pursuing a pretty extreme anti-migrant agenda.

My biggest fear for 2026 is that the hateful narratives being fed into our politics – often seeded and funded from abroad and through the MAGA movement that brought Trump to power – will continue to take root, and that we will lose the sacred ground we hold for human rights and pluralism in favour of a US-style resurgence of ethno-nationalism.

The local elections and Senedd elections in May could see significant gains for the Reform party, with many councils falling to Reform control, and the Senedd race on a knife-edge. If councils are taken over by Reform, that could have direct and harmful consequences on funding and services available to vulnerable local migrant communities, but it will also feed a media narrative that positions the rise of the anti-migrant right as ever more inevitable in the run-up to a general election. Conversely, these elections are likely to bring hope as well, as Plaid Cymru, which has an unabashedly welcoming and positive agenda around migration may still win the most seats in Wales, providing a strong counter-narrative.

Across England as well, many urban councils will turn from Labour to the Greens and LibDems – parties that are offering more hope and positivity. Through well-organised anti-Reform voting, we could see its progress blocked in favour of these positive alternatives. This moment of hope is one that progressives should be ready to capitalise on as much as we can, fighting back against the narrative that the public’s only concern is who can be the harshest on immigrants.

If the Labour party then decide to change their leadership, we have another knife-edge moment of hope versus fear, where they could move either in a more progressive direction, or double down on the current approach. In the latter case I fear a real moment of despair, but there remains everything to play for. A progressive leadership that takes on a more pragmatic and humane approach to immigration still has time to turn around the polls. It could even introduce a fairer, more proportional voting system to avoid a future where Nigel Farage becomes Prime Minister on under 30% of the vote at the next election, which under First Past the Post is a terrifyingly real possibility.

In 2026 Tommy Robinson will lead big nationalist marches, and Trump will continue to work to strangle our attempts at European solidarity, notably with Ukraine. My hope is that the so-far silenced majority in this country, who reject a UK-brand of MAGA politics and refuse to acquiesce to racism will make ourselves heard at last. We must recognise the urgency of the moment and become far more vocal and confident about our demands for the kind of country we want to be.

Gina Miller, businesswoman, transparency and social justice campaigner

Why the UK must move faster on Europe – and be honest about what’s possible.

There is a growing generational divide at the heart of Britain’s relationship with Europe, and it is reshaping the political landscape faster than Westminster is willing to admit.

Recent polling consistently shows that young people overwhelmingly want a much closer relationship with the EU, with large majorities supportive of eventual re-joining. But it also reveals a crucial truth: the politics of re-membership are not viable in the short term. The real danger now is not timidity, but unrealistic ambition that could derail the entire project.

Multiple polls underline how far opinion has shifted. YouGov research shows that around 56% of the public now believe Brexit was a mistake, while a Best for Britain/YouGov poll found over 60% support the UK seeking a closer relationship with the EU. Among younger voters, the numbers are far more striking. Savanta polling for ITV’s Peston indicates that between two-thirds and three-quarters of 18–25-year-olds would vote to rejoin the EU if given the chance. This is not a marginal trend; it is a generational realignment.

Yet even among these younger, strongly pro-European voters, there is realism. The lesson of the past decade is that grand constitutional leaps without public consent backfire. With the next general election due at the latest by August 2029, and Reform UK now leading in several polls, the political window for rebuilding UK-EU ties is narrow and fragile. An all-out push for immediate re-joining risks alienating swing voters and handing ammunition to those who would freeze or reverse cooperation altogether.

That said, Labour’s current approach feels too slow. The polling shows the public is ready, impatient for practical progress. What they are not asking for is symbolism or abstract debates about sovereignty. They want outcomes that have real life positive consequences.

There are clear, achievable “easy wins” that could be delivered within this Parliament and would lock in lasting benefits. A Youth Mobility Scheme tops the list. Polling shows strong support across age groups for restoring opportunities to live, work and study in Europe, particularly for young people who lost those rights overnight through Brexit. A capped, reciprocal scheme would not reopen the freedom of movement debate, it would restore hope and opportunity where it is most urgently needed.

Equally important is re-joining EU data-sharing and security mechanisms. Polling consistently shows over 70% of the public support cooperation with the EU on security, policing and crime. These systems make the UK safer, more effective and more trusted. Leaving them fragmented is ideological and dangerous, not pragmatic.

There is also a clear template available. The recently updated Swiss-EU agreement demonstrates how a non-member state can secure structured access to EU programmes, regulatory cooperation and economic integration without full membership. The UK’s circumstances differ, but the lesson is the same: alignment can be deep, durable and politically defensible.

The real prize before 2029 and a possible Reform led government, is not re-joining. It is irreversibility – embedding cooperation so deeply that it cannot easily be undone by a future anti-EU government. Young people understand this instinctively. They want Britain back at the European table – but they also know that losing the 2029 election would mean losing everything.

Hope requires ambition. Fear demands urgency. Collective realism in 2026 from all pro-EU campaigns and campaigners is what will decide whether this moment is seized or squandered – even as those in favour of rejoining is set to continue to grow each year leading up to the next general election due to demographic changes and leavers changing their minds.

Next month – Hopes and Fears for 2026  Part Two

Our three remaining contributors, Director of UK in a Changing World, Professor Anand Menon, leading UK authority on international trade policy, David Henig, and the driving force behind the National Rejoin March, Peter Corr, will share their hopes and fears for 2026.

Michael Soffe : Could I ask that Bremain have a concerted effort to create a campaign to get ALL the members to vote in the next GE. Many people are saying they have not registered. We are going to need absolutely every vote we can get in the next GE I feel.

Sue Wilson : I absolutely agree that encouraging registration to vote as overseas electors is vital, especially after how hard we fought to regain that right. It is disappointing that so few took advantage when the opportunity arose, so I think a renewed campaign is essential. Timing, however, is crucial: if we ask people to register too early, they may have to repeat the process by the time the election comes around, since re-registration is required every three years. I believe a more forceful push should come a year before the election, to maximize effectiveness. Maintaining this momentum and making sure people are aware of both the opportunity and their responsibilities is key.

Beth Martin :I am unclear what Spanish residents with a TIE are supposed to do when the EES comes in. Do we have to use the same machines as tourists or will we count as “Europeans”?

Sue Wilson : Based on what we know from the embassy, the official EES procedures aren’t entirely clear for residents like us. Officially, if you hold a TIE, you are exempt from fingerprinting and biometric data, but it’s still uncertain which gate you’ll use: in theory, there are supposed to be three options, but we haven’t seen this implemented yet. From my recent experience in Barcelona, I tried the EU gate but was refused, having to use the non-EU line with everyone else, though I didn’t need biometric checks. And, based on the stories we have heard today from members entering through airports such as Alicante, Castellon, and Malaga, for now, I’d advise that TIE holders should expect to queue with other Brits. The rules may become clearer and more consistent as the system matures, but for the time being, expect some confusion and be ready to politely present your case depending on the airport and the officials on duty that day.

Mike Phillips : What is the better way to rejoin a changing EU, in a phased manner starting with an EFTA single market approach, or as if we are a new non-member?

Lisa Burton : I believe that, although full EU membership is our long-term goal, we have to be realistic about the current political climate, both in the UK and within the European Union. From my perspective, the EU is understandably cautious about welcoming Britain back when there’s a risk that another anti-EU government might reverse any progress. That’s why I advocate for a step-by-step, pragmatic approach—one where we focus first on building trust and establishing closer ties through agencies like Horizon, Erasmus, and joint energy projects. While public support for rejoining is rising, it hasn’t yet reached the level where an immediate push would be successful. So, for now, we must combine visible campaigning with emotional arguments that reconnect people to the European ideal, while steadily advancing our engagement with Europe.

David Eldridge : I share Lisa’s view that a phased strategy is wisest. Specifically, I support intermediary measures such as joining a Customs Union, as recently proposed by the Liberal Democrats. This route provides tangible progress without the political difficulties of freedom of movement. Gradual integration reduces the risk of another reversal and builds credibility with the EU, laying a stronger foundation for eventual full membership. I believe incremental steps and maintaining rejoining as our ultimate goal are both essential.

Sue Wilson : I think  it’s important that rejoining the EU remains our goal. Joining the Single Market and Customs Union would be significant improvements but we still wouldn’t have a voice. So we need to work on two fronts, with rejoining as the ultimate goal, while considering how to improve things along the way. One doesn’t have to exclude the other.

Ruth Woodhouse : Our list of aims includes protecting the rights of UK citizens abroad, but have we got anything specific about protecting the rights of EU citizens in the UK?

Sue Wilson : Although we’ve always supported them morally, it’s not explicitly listed in our aims—though it does appear in our mission statement. Our focus has traditionally been on representing Brits in Europe because that’s who our main contacts, like Westminster officials, expect us to represent. However, I see no obstacle to making this support more explicit in our goals, especially given coming challenges. It’s a topic worth revisiting in future council meetings to consider how we might advocate more directly for EU citizens’ rights in the UK.

Lisa Burton : Early on, our group worked very closely with organizations like the 3 millionand the In Limbo project—especially during the heightened uncertainty of the withdrawal agreement’s rollout. Although some of those partnerships have faded a bit, they were strong, productive relationships based on mutual support. I see value in reinvigorating those connections and collaborating where our efforts align. It’s important to revisit these links as we continue to face evolving challenges.

Anonymous : What are your thoughts about the new immigration rules being proposed by the Home Secretary?

Lisa Burton : I see these new immigration policies as deeply worrying, especially the reciprocal risks for Brits in Europe. When lobbying, I point these repercussions out to the Labour government, stressing that dignified treatment of EU citizens in the UK is crucial because it will be mirrored for UK nationals abroad. I’ve also noticed a troubling increase in fear-driven, anti-immigration rhetoric—even among liberal, anti-Brexit group members. It’s vital we keep confronting misinformation with facts and compassion, reinforcing our group’s core values on migrant rights and showing how Brexit has damaged positive attitudes toward migration and made policies more restrictive.

Sue Scarrott : I speak from the perspective of living in Scotland, where the labour shortage is acute and immigration is desperately needed. Policies that prevent asylum seekers from working only make things worse, and we need to communicate how Brexit has led to harmful restrictions—especially hampering our ability to fill essential jobs. I’d like to see a shift in the message toward the advantages migration brings, particularly for struggling economies and public services.

Helen Johnston : It’s clear that Brexit hurt not just long-term migration, but crucially, short-term and seasonal work. This loss is felt in agriculture, hospitality, and other industries that used to rely on the easy movement of temporary workers. I would argue that any discussion about migration policy needs to include the positives of freedom of movement for all types of workers,especially young people, who benefit from opportunities to work abroad and experience other cultures, while filling vital gaps in the labour market.

Sue Wilson : I make it a point to remind people—both inside and outside our group—that we should always link the current hostile migration climate back to Brexit’s negative impact. U.K. policies now erroneously lump all newcomers together as “illegal”, escalating fear and misunderstanding. When the government conflates asylum seekers with economic migrants, public perception worsens, and policy becomes more damaging. Our advocacy should be fact-driven and emphasize constructive, humane solutions.

Anonymous : Do you feel more or less optimistic about the prospects of the UK rejoining the EU now than you did a year ago?

Lisa Burton : I feel 100% more positive than last year. The change in government and Starmer’s deliberate effort to rebuild trust with the EU are significant. The symbolism of the EU-UK summit in Britain was huge, and Starmer has found himself included in European circles where we were previously excluded. There’s mounting evidence of the negative impact Brexit has had: the GDP loss, labour shortages, security issues. Politicians are now talking openly about these problems and about solutions that invariably lead back toward Europe. Public opinion, as reflected in Lib Dem, Lab, and SNP positions, is aligning as well. The landscape is clearly shifting toward closer EU ties.

Sue Wilson : I share the sense that things have moved forward over the past year. It’s encouraging to see Brexit finally being mentioned again by politicians and in the media as, until recently, it has been a taboo subject. I believe politicians are beginning to acknowledge the damage and to talk about improving the relationship with Europe, as well as how the landscape is shifting towards practical cooperation. I’m convinced, though, that the approach will remain cautious for a while—government will want to proceed quietly to avoid political attacks from opposition and media.

Sue closed the AGM by summarising our collective optimism about future relations with the EU and confirming the Council’s views that we are closer now than a year ago, and progress is being made.