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. 

Edwin Hayward is an author and political commentator, probably best known for his book ‘Slaying Brexit Unicorns’, in which he debunks many of the myths surrounding Brexit. 

His work has appeared in Byline Times and The New European/World and many other publications. Edwin is also active on Bluesky and X, where he comments regularly on British politics and Brexit, with his own brand of sarcasm and gallows humour.

Steve Wilson : Is a switch to Proportional Representation a realistic goal in the next 5 years?

There’s a rational answer, and then there’s a realistic one. The rational take is that everything lines up in favour of PR. Labour delegates voted in favour of PR at their 2022 party conference. The LibDems, Greens, Reform, SNP and Plaid Cymru all support PR. There are tentative positive rumblings within the Tory party. A symbolic backbench bill in support of PR passed first reading in January 2025. The 2025 British Social Attitudes survey found majority support for electoral reform in every party’s voter base. The drumbeat has never been louder.

Here’s when reality intrudes. All that counts for nothing if the Labour government won’t play ball. Their overwhelming Commons majority leaves them in absolute control. Parties in power tend not to rush to change the system which put them there. Backbench bills wither and die without government support. Other parties can say what they like; they’re in no position to enact anything. And Labour are past masters at ignoring the will of Conference.

So, is PR a realistic goal within the next five years? Not before the next election, and snowballing events may well see the 2029 GE fought on other grounds.

Anon : What do you regard as Starmer’s best results and worst mistakes?

Carrying on where the Tories left off, Starmer showed exemplary support for Ukraine. This stance, though internationally vital, is likely undervalued at home. Labour ended VAT exemptions on public schools and abolished non-dom status. They raised the minimum wage, created millions of extra NHS appointments, and are bringing the railways back into public ownership. Though their list of achievements goes on, they so far lack a flagship success to catch the public’s imagination.

Labour have also made very high-profile mistakes. The winter fuel debacle saw them tread on an obvious rake early on. Their stance on Gaza and Israel has been catastrophic. It is barely alleviated by very belated recognition for a Palestinian state. Planned welfare reforms, watered down from grizzly heights, will still bite deep. Aping Reform on immigration has been a catastrophic error. The Overton window shifts most when parties move it together, and Labour have shoved it Right. Their endless repainting of harsh Brexit red lines leaves no room for meaningful change. This, despite Brexit being by far the biggest drag on a tottering UK economy.

But for me their biggest mistake is one that rarely makes the headlines. Labour do not appear to understand why they are in power. The 2024 GE was cathartic, a chance for the country to purge itself of 14 miserable Tory years. But it was not a widespread embrace of the Labour manifesto and Labour values. Starmer and Labour misinterpret their huge Commons majority. They take the support of millions of non-traditional Labour voters for granted. Come 2029, the exhortation to “Stop Reform” will resonate far more weakly than “Get the Tories Out” ever did. It is hard to see how Labour can win the next election without a significant change of attitude. They need to pivot politically towards their broader base.

Helen Johnston : Following the latest reshuffle, what are your thoughts on the new cabinet?

Uninspiring. Most of the same faces remain on the front bench, albeit some now in different roles. There has been a loss of key expertise, like David Lammy at the Foreign Office. And for what? It is not as if subject matter experts replaced those moved to other positions. All that happened is that people who were starting to get to grips with their jobs now have to begin all over again. The whole exercise smacked of panic, forced by external events. A chance for Starmer to appear decisive for the sake of appearing decisive. Pure performative politics.

Lisa Burton : Do you envisage any party standing at the next election with a manifesto promise of trying to rejoin the single market (at least) if they get into power?

Yes, with caveats. It feels like the most obvious move for both the LibDems and the Greens. They should go further and put rejoining the EU on the cover of their manifestoes. Would that it were so. But with the best will in the world, it is hard to see how they end up in a position to enact their pledges. That’s the problem with smaller parties, even surging ones. If you’re not in power, none of your commitments mean anything. But perhaps an unprecedented 5/6/7 party bun fight will deliver a surprise. When coalitions are on the table, nothing is off it. We should also remember that all they can do is pledge to negotiate. It is up to the EU to decide the outcome of those negotiations.

Matt Burton : What’s the one Brexit myth that you think has persisted the most?

That we had to leave the EU to get control of immigration. We always had complete control of non-EU migration. And as an EU member, we could have done more than we did to control immigration from EU states. Various EU countries took tougher stances than Britain did. Our huge failure was never showing any real interest in tracking who was entering the UK. If you don’t know who’s coming in, there’s very little you can do to stop any given group from doing so. The abject failure to repeal this myth gives Farage cover to keep taking potshots at Europe. An honorable mention goes to “Brexit was for tax reasons”. This notion continues to circulate on social media like a cockroach that refuses to die. The Leave camp is not alone in persisting Brexit myths.

Michael Soffe : Which “Brexit Unicorn” was the MOST important to slay and which “immigration unicorn” is the most important to slay given the current political climate?

It has to be the idea that Brexit could be cost-free, even positive for the economy. Most of Brexit’s biggest boosters now concede that it has hurt the UK financially. (Many still insist the damage was worth it for the nebulous stuff we got in return, like More Sovereignty.) Much like sticking your hand in a fire, the only way to understand the real damage of Brexit was to experience it. Now we’ve got blackened fingers, and one less Brexit unicorn.

On the immigration front, it’s a tie between two unicorns in equal need of culling. One is that illegal immigration is significant, even a national emergency. In truth it is a mere fraction of irregular migration, which itself is a tiny fraction of all immigration. The other is the way immigrants get taken for granted, despite the huge positive role they play. This attitude is writ large in Labour communications. In August 2025, Starmer, the Home Office, and the official Number 10 Twitter account, tweeted 76 times in total about immigration. That was nearly half their combined social media output for the month. Only one tweet made even passing reference to the positives of immigration. The other 75.5 could have been straight from Reform’s playbook.

Susan Scarrott : Reform are currently flying high in the polls focusing on immigration issues in exactly the same way as the Brexit campaign. Do you think this can be turned around by the next GE or has nothing been learned from the past?

We’re back in rational vs realistic territory. Reform should not be doing as well as they are. They are a one trick pony, and that pony is immigration. For some bizarre reason, Labour and other parties insist on riding it too. In theory, Reform should be beatable. Many of their headline policies crumble under scrutiny. Their only strength is immigration, but it is a superpower. Nobody else can win the immigration fight. Every attempt strengthens Reform further, like some perverse judo reversal. So, what should Labour do? Insist on a different battleground. Imagine for example that the next election were about rejoining the EU. Immigration becomes a small part of that much louder conversation. And other aspects of Brexit are much, much harder to defend. The consequences of Brexit have never been properly interrogated. This would serve to shine a blinding spotlight onto them.

Now for the bucket of ice water: Labour seem set on sticking to the wrong path. They will continue to advance on Reform territory, and in doing so lose more votes than they gain. The ballot box will be their ultimate reckoning. But by then, it will be too late.

David Eldridge : Why do you think Labour are doing their best to copy Reform when all polling evidence suggests Reform’s rise has come from ex-Tory voters/non-voters, and Labour’s losses are to the Lib Dems and Greens?

It beggars belief. As you point out, all the evidence contradicts Labour’s stance. The only answer I can think of is unpleasant and hard to swallow. The issue stems from the very top. Starmer appears to prize being consistent over being right. Once his mind is set, it’s bedrock. Like a supertanker, his turning circle is immense. We have seen this play out many times before. Belated u-turns, coming only after events forced his hand. That’s why Labour are dancing to the wrong tune on immigration. That’s why they’re so far out of whack with the electorate on Brexit. To borrow from Mastermind, Starmer’s motto could be: “I’ve started so I’ll finish”. But many things do not deserve finishing because they were the wrong choices to begin with.