Michael Soffe : Do you believe the time will ever come when we overseas voters will have our own constituencies?

Yes, but not in this Parliament. To make it happen, firstly we need to make sure all MPs know what overseas constituencies are and why UK citizens overseas would be better served by overseas MPs than the current arrangement. This is the phase we are in. Then we need to get overseas constituencies as a policy into the Labour and Conservative manifestos (it is already Lib Dem policy) for the next General Election. The final phase will be to pass legislation in the next Parliament. This timetable is feasible but exacting. 

Ruth Woodhouse :  Do you believe that the outrageous behaviour of Donald Trump and the increasing unreliability of the US could speed up the process towards a strengthened UK-EU relationship?

Yes, I am confident that it will have this effect. 

The UK and the EU’s pro-Ukraine stance is driving this process and is already having this effect on UK-EU military relations. The UK’s pre-eminence as an arms manufacturer should put the UK in a strong position as Europe seeks to develop more effective joint procurement to re-equip its armies. This will require deeper cooperation between the UK and the EU.

Trump’s attacks on the international rules-based order are also driving the UK and the EU closer together. As an example of this, the US opposed a European-drafted resolution condemning Moscow’s actions and supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity in the UN General Assembly. The UK and France then abstained on a US drafted resolution at the UN Security Council which called for an end to the conflict but contained no criticism of Russia.

However, were Trump to launch a trade war against the EU, but not the UK, this could trigger a cooling of UK-EU relations, particularly if the UK appeared to side with Trump or remained silent on the issue.  

Mike Phillips: With Trump’s recent betrayal of security guarantees for Ukraine, how best can Lib Dems encourage Starmer to give greater priority to strengthening links with Europe?

Trump’s actions are already making it clear to Sir Keir Starmer that the UK needs to strengthen its links, at all levels, with the EU.

To encourage Sir Keir Starmer, the Lib Dems should express vocal support for any UK/EU warming of relations, press him to go further than he would like and continue to speak out loudly (in a way it is difficult for the UK Government to do) against the chaos Trump is creating around him. 

Anon :  Some pro-Europeans are holding out for full EU membership while others are fighting for incremental changes to the Brexit deal. Which approach is likely to be more effective? 

The most effective approach in my view would be to gradually rebuild relations with the EU, start to make incremental changes that improve the Brexit deal, increase the UK’s limited influence over the EU and stop any UK legislative changes that could lead to further divergence.

This is the most likely route to rejoining the EU in the medium to long term. It would also mean we had demonstrated our reliability and commitment over a number of years, reducing the risk in the eyes of the EU that the UK is an untrustworthy partner who shouldn’t be allowed to rejoin. It would also give us the time to work on highlighting the benefits of EU membership, so we are in a strong position to fight the inevitable referendum. 

David Eldridge : What is the chance of electoral reform happening after the next election?

With all the smaller parties in favour of electoral reform, and the Labour party membership and trade union movement (if not the Labour leadership) backing PR, support for PR is growing. 

Add to that a two-party system that is splintering, leading to an increased likelihood of no party having a majority in the next Parliament. To form a government the larger party would require a coalition with a smaller party, which would likely seek PR as part of an agreed programme of government.

But to guarantee reform, we need the general public to be talking about electoral reform as one of the solutions to the UK’s longstanding and most intractable problems and putting pressure on the government for change. This isn’t happening at scale yet. Making PR the subject of supportive dinner table conversations is our biggest challenge and our best chance of ensuring PR for Westminster is in the next Labour manifesto.

Steve Wilson : With Labour MPs and members at odds with the government regarding Brexit and PR, do you think we can expect a change of approach before the next election?

The government are focused on delivering their five missions, with a sixth recently added, to boost the UK’s security and defence.

Although growth is central to its overall mission, and reversing some of the most damaging aspects of Brexit would be the quickest way to achieve growth, so far it looks as though the government is still too scared of ‘red wall’ voters to suggest any rapprochement that could be described as undoing Brexit. It has also painted itself into a corner by saying no single market, no customs union, no freedom of movement. So, I expect incremental improvements in UK/EU relations, not a big bang (see my answer to Ruth Woodhouse’s question).

For the answer on any change of approach to PR, see my answer to David Eldridge.

What do you consider Unlock Democracy’s greatest achievement, and your greatest challenge going forward?

Unlock Democracy’s greatest recent achievement is to have regained some of the visibility and influence it achieved in the years after it was first launched in 1988 (it was then called Charter 88). Unlock Democracy is now in regular conversations with government officials and MPs about a range of democratic reform issues, including automatic voter registration, postal votes for overseas voters, votes at 16, and foreign funding of UK politics. We expect a number of policies we have been campaigning for to be included in an Elections Bill which should be published in the next six months.

Our greatest challenge going forward is to broaden our support base so we can reach millions of people, rather than hundreds of thousands. This will be needed if we are to achieve electoral reform but also to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to a Trumpian-style insurgent government which denigrates and downgrades UK democracy and institutions.  

Lisa Burton : Do you think if Britain was to change its voting method from FPTP to a type of proportional representation it would remove some of the tribalism and help restore trust in politics?

PR isn’t a panacea. Introducing PR won’t, on its own, restore trust in politics. This will require action on a number of fronts. It will require:

• a period of stable government
• evidence the government can deliver
• an absence of newsworthy scandals involving MPs

However, PR would help on all of these fronts: 

• providing more continuity in government than First Past The Post (FPTP) voting which is leading to more and more unpredictable and potentially extreme outcomes 
• delivering more effective government with evidence that countries with PR are healthier, wealthier, have less income inequality and are more serious about tackling climate change than countries with FPTP

offering fewer safe seats leading to less risk-taking by MPs. 

On the subject of tribalism, PR for Westminster elections is likely to lead to coalition governments. Coalitions require parties to work together. This builds relations between politicians from different parties. It also means the policy solutions they design have to have wider electoral appeal. It may also reduce the chance that policies which coalition partners worked on together get scrapped after an election in which one of the coalition partners loses its seat at the Cabinet table.

Next month

Caroline Lucas was the UK’s first Green Party Member of Parliament between 2010 and 2024, and before that served for 10 years in the European Parliament.  She has also served as both Leader and Co-Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales.  She is a writer, campaigner and keynote speaker, with a particular interest in the role of education and the arts in mobilising action on the climate and nature emergencies.  She has won numerous awards for her work: in 2020 she topped the list of the BBC Radio Woman’s Hour One Planet Power List of influential activists, educators and campaigners, and in 2024 the UK’s largest sustainable business awards scheme presented her with its Lifetime Achievement Award.

She is Co-President of the European Movement, and a Trustee of the Towner Art Gallery in Eastbourne.  Her latest book, a Sunday Times bestseller, is Another England: How to Reclaim our National Story.

If you would like to submit a question(s) for Caroline, please email us no later than Tuesday 8 April.

 Michael Soffe : Name your three greatest losses caused by leaving the EU and which of the three would you like to get back first?

From a purely selfish point of view, I’d like my career back. I used to present travel shorts and promos for companies across the EU. They were well-paid gigs and had me doing what I enjoy most: waking up somewhere new, presenting to camera and encouraging people to travel from a position of unique insight. Since Brexit, the offers declined, and now that I’d need a work permit, the offers have stopped entirely.

The second thing, which affects almost all of us, is how we can no longer freely travel around our own continent anymore. There are restrictions, and compromises have to be made. I can no longer even dream about retiring by the Med.

Finally, and again possibly selfishly, the cultural loss is something I take personally. There are the bands and singers, artists and dreamers who can no longer tour freely around our continent – the thousands of songs we’ll never hear, stories we’ll never read, films we’ll never see, all as a direct consequence of Brexit.

As a scouser who didn’t attend a private school, it really annoys me that the people who told us to vote for Brexit were almost all (to a man) members of that posh, pampered, privileged elite for whom this sort of thing isn’t a bother. They’ve lost NOTHING. They can afford the work permits, the visas, the residencia. Farage’s kids have German passports, Johnson’s dad lives in France, Tommy Ten Names has an Irish passport. No skin off their noses.

So yeah, what do I want more than anything? My freedom of movement. I want that back. I don’t see why it should be the reserve of the feckless, braying, inbred English neo-aristocracy.

Lisa Burton : How much more difficult would it be now, post Brexit, to visit all 193 UN member countries as you did previously?

It would be even more of a headache, that’s for sure. I mean it’s great that once I’m in the Schengen Area, I’ve got 29 countries I can visit without having to wait for 17 hours at each border, but what about the overseas territories of the EU that I had to pass through in order to complete my journey… Martinique, St Martin, Reunion, New Caledonia etc.? It would all add up. What if I went over my 90 days in 180?

Back when I was setting my Guinness World Record in 2010, the British passport was the most powerful in the world, something that gave me a bit of an edge to complete my mission. It no longer is. Furthermore, I don’t know if I could rely on representatives of EU countries coming to my aid if I got into a sticky situation – something they did when I was in Cape Verde and Congo.

I don’t think Brits who have rarely travelled outside of the EU know what it’s like crossing a “normal” border. They were lulled into a false sense that the freedoms we enjoyed, to buzz around our continent at a whim with minimum fuss were a given, that’s what it’s like everywhere, right? No

Anon : Of all the 193 UN member states you visited, which have made the most indelible impressions on you?

That’s a tricky one… since they all did! Sometimes for bad reasons, but more often for the best of reasons. Places like Egypt, Bolivia, Madagascar, Ethiopia, Thailand hold a special place in my heart, but it was Iran that really stood out. Terrible government for sure, but the people I met were just amazing. I got adopted everywhere I went!

My favourite memory of the entire journey was when I was on an overnight bus from Shiraz to Khorramshahr, and the little old lady sitting in front of me, who only spoke Farsi, passed me her phone. I put it to my ear, and the guy on the other end of the line introduced himself as Seyed, and told me (perfect English, by the way) that I was sitting behind his grandmother. She had called him because she was concerned about me. You see, the bus got in very early the next day, around 5am. She thought that I’d have nothing to do and nowhere to go. So, she wanted to know (if it was okay with me) if she could take me home with her and make me breakfast.

I get a bit teary when I recount that. Faith in humanity… restored!

Iran is also where I picked up my favourite saying: “Always be kind to strangers, for one day you might be the stranger.”

Steve Wilson : What lessons could the UK learn from other nations about democracy and dealing with far-right extremism?

I think there is a line that must be drawn, where people who don’t believe in democracy are not given a democratic platform.

Two things that I think are urgent: Firstly, clamping down on the misinformation and disinformation in the traditional media and on social media. We need press reform and robust legislation to curtail hate speech online. Hold the platforms accountable. Ofcom needs teeth, newspaper barons and the likes of GB News should no longer get away with spreading their lies and poison without any meaningful consequences. Germany is a good example of a place where Nazism is clamped down on hard (notwithstanding the recent AfD vote) and it’s against the law to deny or downplay the Holocaust.

Secondly, we need to equip our populations with the tools they need to spot bullshit wherever it appears. Finland does a great job with this, teaching kids in primary school how to identify fake news. Kids can then pass on what they’ve learnt to their parents, to their grandparents. It’s why Finland is the least likely place in Europe, and possibly the world, to fall for Russian propaganda etc.

Valerie Chaplin : How can we fight Starmer and his #MakeBrexitWork mantra?

Lobby Labour MPs. Most of them are decent people and want what’s best for the country. But be smart: going in all guns blazing demanding Brexit be reversed (although that’s what we all want to do) isn’t going to get us anywhere. Think about what moves we can realistically take with regards to greater cooperation with the EU: common defence strategies, youth mobility schemes, reviving Erasmus, joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean (PEM) convention, a return as a full member of Euratom etc.

Every step on that journey is another step closer to rejoining the EU. But, don’t forget, we don’t just need Labour onside to make this happen, we need the vast majority of Brits onside as well, and while the number of people who think Brexit has gone well is declining by the day, there are still a sizeable number of “loonies” (to use the scientific term) who would defend even an imperfect Brexit like it was their firstborn.

Helen Johnston : The Government is failing to call out Trump and Musk and publishing Reform-style ads boasting “Labour hits 5-year high in migrant removals”. Where do we go from here?

Yes, it blows my mind. However, this is precisely why I’m not a politician. No way could I be diplomatic in the face of such provocation from the likes of Trump and Musk.

I guess Starmer has made the calculation that prohibitive tariffs placed on British goods entering the US would massively impact the UK economy, already reeling from Austerity, Brexit, Covid and Truss, and that our defence capabilities rely heavily on American hardware and software… so play nice, flatter the Mango Mussolini, while quietly plotting an exit strategy (one that I hope takes us back to our true friends in the EU).

As for those bloody ads… urgh. What were they thinking?!! I run a YouTube channel called Politics Social, and one topic that comes up more often than not when I’m chatting to Phil Moorhouse, Mike Galsworthy, Femi Oluwole, Marina Purkiss etc., is just how utterly dire Labour comms are. They make the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation look competent!

Those of us that have a bit of a platform are trying our best to encourage Labour to see how they’re coming across to the vast majority of us voters. My hope is that they get their act together in the next few years in time for the next election.

I want a Labour Party that works on the principles of the people who vote for them, not one that operates out of fear of those who do not.

Ruth Woodhouse : I understand you have stood as an independent candidate and as a candidate for the Liberal Democrats. Would you consider standing as a Rejoin EU candidate should the opportunity arise?

To be brutally honest, if there was a danger of me actually being elected, I wouldn’t have stood! I don’t want to be a politician, and I don’t think I’d make a particularly good one (not least because of the reason I gave in my last answer… I’m far too hot-headed).

As for Rejoin EU, I’m a bit torn. Since we live in a first-past-the-post system, there’s the argument that it takes the sensible vote away from other centre and left-wing parties, without any realistic chance of getting in an MP. That being the case, I would prefer to work with the rejoin wing of the Lib Dems or the Labour Movement for Europe in order to effect change from within the established parties. But yeah, if we had Proportional Representation, I would be more inclined to stand. Can’t say I’d make a “good” MP though!

David Eldridge : Do you think the UK will rejoin the EU one day and if so, what would the process and timescale be?

Yes. Absolutely. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever. I see it as inevitable. A geographic, historic, socio-economic certainty. There’s very little I’m thankful to that Wotsit Wanker in Washington for, but if he’s achieving anything right now, it’s frog-marching the UK back into the arms of our lovely neighbours. So, er, thanks for that, you Spray-Tan Satan.

Coupled with Vladimir Putin’s barbarous designs on the free peoples of Europe, I can see Reunification Day edging ever closer with each and every unhinged headline I read about the MAGA Mafia currently running America into the ground.

I think we’ll see more UK-EU cultural, economic and military agreements over the next four years, and when Trump refuses to leave the White House (I can’t see him ever leaving that place unless it’s in a box), the need for us to return home to the EU will become more pressing than ever.

I can see the 2029 election being fought on closer integration with the EU: single market, customs union, a free movement deal and perhaps even a legally binding referendum to rejoin in 2030.

If you had asked me that question a few months ago, I would have said a rejoin referendum in the 2034 Labour and Lib Dem manifestos was an outside possibility, but with that Tangerine Twat tearing up all international norms, that timeline is accelerating by the day.

Turns out, even the most toxic of clouds can have a silver lining…

Thanks for your questions. That was fun! Slava Ukraini.

Gina Miller, Co-Founder of SCM Direct and MoneyShe, Activist and Campaigner

I was never one for making predictions, and even less so post-2016. But as we enter 2025, few would deny that the global outlook is a complex web of cautious optimism and pressing challenges. While there are glimmers of hope, there are equally ominous clouds on the horizon that cannot be ignored.

Politically, the world order appears fragile, and the cracks are widening, which I fear is undermining the cooperation on issues that demand urgent attention—climate change, security, and migration among them. Security threats from collaborations between Iran, Russia, and North Korea loom large, posing serious risks to Europe and the UK. Threats that underscore the urgent necessity for the UK to reduce the barriers, bad faith and economic, security and cultural distance with our closest neighbours. To work with creativity and courage to strengthen our alliances, protect Europe and the UK, and foster a unified approach to safeguard stability.

Already we have seen the spectre of Donald Trump’s second term as US President deepen these anxieties, with his return to power, surrounded by some of the richest, most powerful billionaires in the Western world, ushering in an era of plutocracy. His transactional and often divisive approach to global diplomacy jeopardising decades of hard-won alliances, the erosion of trust in multilateral institutions, and his disdain for addressing climate change are already sending shockwaves through the international community. Economists are also fearful that his love of tariffs and trade wars is likely to increase economic uncertainty, with a breakdown in the world trading system, and lower productivity growth, which will hurt the poorest in society and again fuel populism.  I fear that a world order already reeling from structural social and economic challenges risks tipping further into chaos due to his leadership.

Closer to home, the rise of the far right, amplified by social media platforms, algorithms, and the influence of billionaires, poses an existential threat to all our democracies. AI-driven disinformation campaigns and the deliberate fuelling of societal divisions are energising extremist ideologies and further eroding public trust in our democratic institutions. Those exploiting the grievances of people suffering from the cost-of-living crisis, job losses, and decades of poor political decisions must be confronted. If left unchecked, I am very fearful that this trend threatens to undo the social, democratic and multicultural advancements we have fought so hard to achieve since the second world war.

But while these fears and dangers are real, I am heartened by the resilience I see in our younger generations. A recent YouGov poll conducted for the European Council on Foreign Relations revealed that nearly seven in ten Britons, including a majority of former pro-Brexit voters, support a scheme allowing 200,000 young people from the UK and the EU to travel, study, and work freely in each other’s countries for up to four years. Such overwhelming support highlights a growing recognition of the importance of international collaboration and cultural exchange.

This shift is especially encouraging at a time when public discourse is increasingly influenced by misinformation. The growing threat of opinion replacing fact is a pressing issue for our society and democracy, as a democracy cannot function if its citizens are misled or manipulated by falsehoods. Yet, amidst this, the younger generation’s pushback against fake news, social media manipulation, fast fashion, greed, gives me hope. Their willingness to question, challenge, and demand accountability may be the key to reversing these dangerous trends – BUT only if they are encouraged to be activist citizens. To stand up, speak out and fight back – our stewardship as the older generation is to help them do just that.

Another source of my optimism lies in the resilience of communities. After the devastating summer riots in the UK last year, the way people came together to rebuild and support one another was a testament to the power of collective action. Similarly, the growing momentum behind grassroots movements—advocating for climate action, social justice, and political reform—demonstrates that change often begins at the local level.

Still, my fears linger. Inequalities continue to deepen, environmental degradation accelerates, and democratic norms are increasingly under siege. The cowardice of those in positions of power—those who refuse to make difficult decisions or take meaningful action—remains a significant obstacle to progress.

As we navigate 2025, the path forward will not be easy. But I remain hopeful. I believe in the power of communities, in the potential of young people, and in the ability of humanity to rise to the occasion when it matters most. To secure a fair, sustainable, and tolerant future, we must demand better from our leaders and from ourselves. It is a time for bold action, driven by collective purpose, to ensure that hope triumphs over fear.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned since 2016, it’s that we cannot afford to be complacent. The stakes are too high, but the future is ours to shape.

That matters, not least because until those forces are faced down any prospect for substantial improvements in relations with the EU will be limited. Why should the EU agree to too much if it is liable to be reversed by, potentially, the next government? But it also matters because the UK polity needs, collectively, to have an honest discussion about Brexit. It is now obvious that it has limited public support, and even those who advocated Brexit have to admit that it has not remotely delivered on the promises they made for it.

I think it is useful to compare this with the Munich Agreement and the Suez Crisis. Both were deeply divisive issues in their time, yet both are now almost universally accepted bywords for shameful failure. Almost no politician now would be scared to denounce them. We have to get to that point with Brexit and the sooner the better. It isn’t enough for the government just to talk about the ‘botched Brexit deal’ delivered by the Tories. Brexit has to be acknowledged as a historic strategic error, and for that to be the consensus view of all but a fringe minority, before any real change will become possible.

The extent of that error should become even clearer this year with the advent of what looks certain to be a highly disruptive and de-stabilizing second Trump presidency. That will underscore the fragility of Britain’s post-Brexit place in the world, as a medium-sized power and yet detached from any major economic or political bloc.

On the other hand, the incoming presidency is highly likely to give new energy to populist movements, perhaps especially in the UK. This inevitably mitigates against a domestic consensus about the error of Brexit, and, in turn, makes it more likely that the government will continue to be low-key and almost apologetic for any small improvements it makes. It is also quite likely that the government will try to navigate the Trump presidency in the hope that, eventually, things will revert to ‘business as usual’.

Overall, then, my hope for 2025 is the UK government will recognize and rise to a moment of fundamental strategic re-alignment. My fear is that it has neither the imagination nor the capacity nor the courage to do so.

Alexandra Hall Hall, Former British diplomat and Brexit Counsellor to Washington

It’s hard not to feel depressed at the start of 2025. This is not because our enemies have multiplied or become worse, but because the world’s most important ordering power has gone rogue.

It’s hard to find much reason for hope, especially when the Supreme Court is in his pocket, and both Republicans and Democrats seem so utterly cowed by Trump, that they are offering little meaningful resistance, even when Trump tramples over their constitutional rights, such as with his order delaying implementation of Congress’s ban of TikTok, or suspension of foreign aid which they have authorized.

But these are early days. Eventually, Trump’s excesses will cause a backlash. His administration lacks ideological coherence. He has surrounded himself with incompetent people with giant egos, who will inevitably come into conflict with Trump and each other. For example, Elon Musk has already fallen out with Trump’s consigliere, Steve Bannon, and the man supposed to co-lead the new Department of Government Efficiency, Vivek Ramaswamy. Last week he publicly attacked Trump’s AI initiative.

Trump’s economic policies, especially his plan to slap tariffs on trading partners around the world, spell disaster for American businesses and workers, and will drive up inflation. His immigration policies will disrupt businesses reliant on cheap labour. Ugly scenes of immigration raids in offices, schools, and churches will cause revulsion.

Lawsuits will impede his most egregious policies, such as his attempt to overturn birthright citizenship, enshrined in the Constitution, or to fire federal workers without due process. Governors will push back against attempts to interfere with states’ rights.

His bullying foreign policy may cause some short term wins, such as his muscling of Israel to sign a ceasefire deal with Hamas, and insistence that allies spend more on their own defence. But they will not produce lasting results. They will instead reduce goodwill towards the US, embolden adversaries, and open the way for China to fill the gap left by American retreat from the world stage.

Eventually, even members of Trump’s own party, contemplating their re-election prospects, may find some spine.

A deafening silence is coming out of London about what we do want. By the time political leaders gather for smiles and photos, serious work in negotiating a new understanding must be long completed. With a union of 27 member states, the agenda needs to be set, diplomatic groundwork concluded, and ‘turf rolled’ in capitals, parliaments and media across Europe. Wrinkles must be ironed out before political leaders turn up for the handshakes.

This process should be 50% complete by now to achieve much, but there is no sign of anything. We just hear a kneejerk ‘no’ in Whitehall. We knew the customs union and single market were ‘red lines’ but why on earth rule out a youth mobility scheme almost universally popular with voters and having tangible benefits for our economy? They must embrace this – and fast.

Donald Trump’s return is the other significant development. We must judge him by what he does, not what he says. He sprays wild rhetoric around as a negotiating tactic. He hopes to resolve the Ukraine war by manoeuvring Putin and Zelensky into a deal. This will be difficult.

Albeit slowly and at terrible cost, Putin is winning – why make a deal when time is on his side? And if Ukraine accepts Russia’s land seizures as the price of peace, how can they or their neighbours believe Putin will stop there and not come back for more? Any deal must accept the shrunken Ukraine joining both the EU and NATO, with European NATO forces moving up to the new border even if America isn’t interested.

Trump is deadly serious about tariffs. He objects to trade deficits with other nations. He will impose tariffs based on those deficits. Here we have a ticklish problem. UK-US trade is uniquely well balanced – a slight advantage to America in 2023, potentially to Britain in 2024. So, he may impose low – or no – tariffs on us, while stinging the EU. This will cause UK-EU friction which we can do nothing about – we can hardly volunteer to pay higher tariffs which America isn’t charging.

My final fear is on climate change – the greatest threat the world faces. Trump has pulled America out of the Paris accords and right-wing EU governments are trying to erode Europe’s lead on this. So far, the EU Commission is holding fast, but the threat of watering down is real. Are we really going to look to China for a global lead on this? That really is scary!

David Henig, Leading UK authority on international trade policy 

As we approach a decade from the Brexit referendum, UK debate about the EU remains largely immature and unrealistic. That’s where I hope to see change, without which there’s little prospect of improving relations significantly.

In other words, they are saying the UK is so weak it will have to do exactly what the EU asks. Not exactly a vote of confidence in their own project.

If only this wasn’t mirrored on the pro-EU side, whose discussions on the theoretical possibility of rejoining insist that there would definitively be no opt-outs. Perhaps that’s right, but it is the same expectation that the UK has no power.

At the same time, we hear suggestions that the UK is also tremendously strong. So much so that the EU would definitely want us back as members, or that we bestride the world doing deals.

Dull though it may be, the reality of the UK as a middling power with some negotiating capacity, but less than that of the EU, seems to be rarely spoken. Until that’s understood, we’ll just keep going round in circles.

Also, how have we not learnt that the EU is a political and legal entity where rules are important but can be flexible? Again, pro and anti-EU camps seem similar in thinking it is much more, a global salvation or evil empire.

Less talk of UK red lines obstructing progress would also be helpful. Every country has their own lines, this is absolutely normal, also that they can and will evolve. What’s more important to the EU is what has rarely happened, a good-faith negotiation. That will open the door to more.

Fault isn’t entirely on one side, and we can criticise some in the EU for a negative approach to a new government particularly in negotiating positions on youth mobility and SPS. But then we’d also have to complain about a UK government that took some convincing there wasn’t an automatic renegotiation in 2026 and doesn’t seem to realise it has to shape the relationship through public discussion of objectives. Without which Brussels just sees the same old UK, scared yet somehow wanting barriers removed.

There’s room for development all round. That includes me, for while I’m grateful to hear that Brussels thinks I get some of this right and London should listen more, that means I haven’t been succeeding in either place.

By the end of the year, I’d love to be thinking about how to improve relations more than explaining the basics. My fear is I’ll be writing the same piece with slightly different words. Taking a balanced view, I suspect there will be slow progress.

I knew that if we left the EU with a trade deal, even the thread-bare one we have, that it would be used by the loudest people to say, “Brexit never happened” and/or “This isn’t the Brexit we voted for”. From that point, they would be able to continue blaming the EU for the country’s problems, continue to blame immigrants for our frustrations and never take responsibility. I even rang in to James O’Brien’s show on LBC to air the view, to which he agreed and also said it was similar to Alistair Campbell’s stance.

I wanted us to leave without a deal, giving them exactly what they said they wanted, which I know would have caused even more harm, even more quickly, to all of us – but it would also have sped up the process of Rejoin immensely. How could it not? Therefore, we would hurt more, but for much less time. The old saying, “no pain, no gain”.

So, Trump winning on a ticket of having a massive trade war around the world is similar to me, in that the catastrophe of what he’s saying is pushing people here, even people who may not have been ready yet, back towards Europe, clearly who we really have a ‘special relationship’ with. If, as I suspect, Trump’s team give Starmer’s team short shrift as they try to strike a deal (despite the country saying we don’t even want that), Starmer will be forced to stand up and tell the country that they cannot agree a deal.

It is at this point that it becomes a perfect opportunity for Starmer to bite the bullet and do what almost 90% of under 25s want for their future – to Rejoin the EU or say we should now at least consider it. He can sell it easily. We can stay on our own, skint – or we can join our European neighbours once more. It can be truthfully sold as urgent and essential for national security and the economy.

I also believe the EU would fast-track it, bring the 6th biggest economy back into the block, so we can stand together against Trump’s greedy, bullying tactics – as well as crush the rise of the far right across Europe. Who is going to see the UK leave, swerve to the far right, then almost straight away u-turn and come back to the EU after a number of years proving being outside the EU isn’t the way to go.

So, in a way, my hopes and fears for 2025 are tied together. I fear what continuing to be outside the EU does to our country and people. I fear what Trump’s heavily nationalistic ways are going to do to the world, our country and people – but, the harder he goes in, the quicker I believe, the UK will get back to the EU and decent people around the world will come together to protect each other and fight the clear and present fascism in our countries – that’s the hope.

Next month

Graham Hughes

Graham is a campaigner, adventurer, filmmaker, television presenter and Guinness World Record holder, being the first person to visit all 193 United Nations member states across the world without flying. If you would like to submit a question for Graham, please email us enquiries@bremaininspain.com no later than Sunday 10 February.

Steve Wilson : Do you believe it’s possible to get Labour to abandon any of its Brexit red lines during this Parliamentary term?

I do not think Labour will be able to maintain its present minimalist line on Europe throughout the whole Parliament. The failure of Brexit can only become clearer in the coming years; the probably mediocre performance of the British economy will increase pressure to pursue the obvious benefits accruing from closer economic relations with the EU; and the election of Donald Trump is likely to force the UK to choose between improving its economic ties with the EU and maintaining good political relations with Washington. Having exhausted all the alternatives, Keir Starmer will eventually be forced to move in the right direction on Europe. Domestic political pressure will help him to move further, faster.

Lisa Burton : Many say the EU won’t have the UK back unless there is a strong consensus across the political sphere. As a former Conservative, do you think the party can ever be persuaded to retake a pro-European stance?

Not in its present form. I do, however, think the Conservative Party is very unlikely to survive in its present form, since it is subject to political pressure both from Reform on the right and from the left by centrist parties. I expect Reform will come to dominate the right wing of British politics, but only as a marginal party, representing say 20% of the electorate. This splintering and shrivelling of the right-wing vote will make the UK’s rejoining of the EU easier.

Ruth Woodhouse : In terms of renewed participation in European initiatives open to non-EU members, which would you prioritise and why?

It was unnecessary for the UK to leave the Erasmus Programme, and the Conservative government only did so to please UKIP supporters, who were traditionally uneasy with the idea of young Britons being encouraged by their studies and personal experiences to think of themselves as “Europeans”. I am in favour of Erasmus for the same reasons UKIP supporters were against it

Michael Soffe : As a newly re-enfranchised overseas voter, I lent my vote to Labour in the last GE although you had a candidate in my constituency, to try and ensure the Tories lost. I would really rather vote for a “rejoin” party. How will you convince me? Do you believe you have the funding to field many more candidates at the next GE?

Our primary focus in the next two years is to fight and put up a creditable performance in as many elections as possible, especially Parliamentary by-elections. As a political party, we exist in order to show current mainstream politicians that there are votes in wanting to rejoin the EU. If we can do that, then new resources will very probably become available to us. How we might wish or be able to participate in the next General Election will be matter for decision nearer the time. 

John Hodges : The Tories have promised to reverse any return to the SM/CU. So, if Labour were to negotiate a return to the SM and maybe the CU as well (admittedly a big ‘if’ at the moment), can safeguards be put in place to prevent the Tories doing so easily?

I am not sure that it will be possible to negotiate a return to the SM/CU without rejoining the EU as a whole. It might well seem to our EU partners that once again the UK was “cherry-picking.” If there were some new arrangement between the EU and UK which approximated to membership of the Single Market, there could be no guarantee against a determined later government unpicking this arrangement. The best guarantee of British seriousness about the European Union would be for us to rejoin whole-heartedly, including membership of the Euro, from which it is very difficult to exit easily.

Anne Parry : As defence and security are still national competencies, would it make sense for the UK to seek to reset relations with EU member states on military issues, given the threat that Russia and their autocratic allies pose to our freedom?

Yes indeed, but it should not be supposed that this enhanced co-operation will pave the way for British re-entry into the EU. A better general bilateral atmosphere between the EU and UK will not resolve the question of British willingness or otherwise to accept sovereignty-pooling within the EU’s spheres of competence and to respect the legitimate roles of the EU’s central institutions.  

David Eldridge : Do you think Trump’s victory will force the UK government to seek closer ties to the EU quicker than planned?

Trump divides the world into his enemies and his friends. From his friends he demands unconditional loyalty, for very little in return. Trump has never concealed his contempt for the European Union. It may be tempting for the Labour government to believe it can be friends with Donald Trump, without abandoning its hopes of “resetting” its relationship with the EU. This is a delusion. Starmer will have to choose between an American orientation for the UK and a European orientation. The unpopularity of Trump and of his most prominent British supporter Nigel Farage with the British electorate would make the American option electorally suicidal for Starmer. 

Tracy Rolfe: Do you think the UK will eventually rejoin the EU? If so, when and how do you think it will happen?

Yes, unless the EU does actually collapse as the Daily Express is hoping, I think rejoining is inevitable. The vast majority of opposition to EU membership is loaded into older people and it’s not a view that becomes more prevalent as you get older, as some political issues do. This is part of a very specific generation of people. So, if nothing else, as time passes, the electorate becomes more pro-EU, the politicians personally linked with Brexit disappear from the scene, and the new leaders have no baggage, we will eventually see the benefits.

However, I’m not a fan of achieving political change through a patient game of waiting for millions of people to die off, so I’d rather we pressed the issue more quickly. Peter Mandelson recently said that he thought we might be getting ready to apply in about ten years. I certainly think that if Labour are to achieve their economic aims, then achieving more growth will have to include breaking down the most obvious trade barriers.

Valerie Chaplin : What do you think of Keir Starmer’s attitude towards Brexit and his slogan ‘Make Brexit Work’?

First of all, Keir Starmer was the most recognisable voice against Brexit as far as the public were concerned. He did not get kicked in the head by a horse when he became Labour leader. His change of position reflected the change in our EU status. Not that his real beliefs on EU membership matter, more what his Government will do.

The “Make Brexit Work” slogan is as meaningless as any other political slogan. It can simply mean that he is going to get our economy in shape outside the EU. But, of course, it will always be hampered by trade barriers as a result of being outside the SM and CU. What Starmer is trying to agree with the EU in practice actually represents the steps which would need to be taken if we rejoined at least the single market. As such, I see no difference between his policies and the policies of someone who was openly talking about joining the SM or EU proper. Of course, he might not achieve them, but we don’t qualify to join the SM or EU right now anyway.

Lisa Burton : What do you think of Boris Johnson’s comments in recent interviews regarding Brexit, particularly it ‘being an argument he wanted to win’ and his continuing blame game?

We know that the real reason Boris Johnson championed Brexit was for political power. He did not believe that he could become Conservative leader, and therefore Prime Minister, without the support of Tory MPs described by a former party chair as ‘swivel eyed loons.’ They wanted Brexit, so he thought that if he became the banner bearer for Brexit, he could win their support.

It’s believed that he did not expect the leave campaign to win, and so did not think he would actually have to deal with the consequences – simply benefit from the support of Brexiteers when David Cameron stepped down, which he was going to do during the second Parliament anyway.

It’s been clear throughout that Boris Johnson understands nothing about the EU, the single market, the customs union or even what a non-tariff barrier actually is. We’ve also seen that he simply does or says whatever he thinks he needs to do in order to deal with tricky problems in the short term with no thought for the long term. So, whatever Boris Johnson decides to say was his reasoning for getting behind Brexit, it was only ever a device to have the easiest possible path to becoming Prime Minister.

Michael Soffe : Earlier in the year you quoted Tory MP Paul Scully as saying a new referendum on Brexit would result in the vote being reversed. Do you believe there will be a further referendum and if so, presumably way down the road? How do we convince the public that we need one?

I believe that we will apply to rejoin the EU, and a referendum is the only credible way of doing that now. I would suggest that in order to maximise the chances of success, we actually have two referenda included in the legislation, as we should have done before. We know that issues like currency will be a big worry for people, but that it’s also possible to negotiate opt-outs, though we can’t expect everything we had before.

So, we should have one referendum which only gives the Government the authority to apply for membership, and then a second referendum, once the terms are agreed, which the public use to give final approval.

But, to persuade the public, we need them to realise that Brexit trade barriers are the cause of problems like getting NHS medicines and staff, food which is less fresh, higher costs of goods and some services. So, we need an official economic assessment of being outside the EU/SM/CU.

Mike Fitzgerald : If you were in a position of power, what would be your approach to a “reset with the EU”? And do you think a ‘reset’ can lay foundations for a future rejoin?

So, we have to be mindful of two things when it comes to closer moves to the EU. The first is that a significant number of key voters are still not convinced Brexit is bad, and the second is that the Conservatives will loudly proclaim that they will reverse any major alignment with the EU that Labour implements.

So, although I think my approach would be a bit different to Starmer’s, I don’t think it would be very far away. When EU policy experts criticise Labour’s moves it tends to be along the lines of being clear about what they want from the EU. We know Labour wants a veterinary deal, mutual recognition of qualifications and a deal that sounds very like freedom of movement for performers. But Labour haven’t been clear about the precise details, or what they think we can agree to give the EU in return.

So, I would say that I think what I would do in power is to have those detailed proposals worked out as a priority so that there was the basis for discussion. I would also have bitten their hand off at the prospect of re-joining Erasmus, because nobody wanted us to leave.

Lawrence Renaudon Smith : There is a lot of discussion about university students and Erasmus etc., but I hear very little about the effect Brexit is having on the attitudes and education of schoolchildren. Are they becoming more inward-looking and nativist due to Brexit? Gen Z are pro-EU membership, but are Gen Alpha going to see other Europeans as “the foreigners”? 

I’m not a sociologist, but I don’t think the next generation will be anti-EU. Anti-EU sentiment worked largely on people who were lied to on the basis that bad things in the country were blamed on the EU. This doesn’t work on a generation entering adulthood outside the EU. I would also say Brexit sentiment worked well on many older people because of classic nostalgia. You think things were better when you were young and ascribe it to society being better at the time. In reality, it’s because you were young, fit and healthy, and didn’t have to grunt every time you got out of a chair.

Again, this doesn’t really work on the youngest because their young, fit and healthy times are in the Brexit years. I gather the younger generation use the word Brexit to mean something that’s been cocked up. I think they’ll be pro-EU on balance.

Helen Johnston : Most recent surveys show that Labour Party members and voters believe Brexit was wrong for the country and would like to see more progress on the UK moving closer to Europe. Do you get the impression that the Labour leadership is listening to its grassroots at all, e.g. at the recent party conference?

So, Labour are listening to the grassroots, but we vote for them even when they’re losing. They have to listen more closely to key swing voters and, as a Labour member, I want them to do that. But people also misrepresent polls as well. A clear majority do believe Brexit was wrong, but that’s not the same as wanting a Government to say we will rejoin.

We know that more people would like to rejoin than stay out, but when you ask even if that means adopting the euro, all of a sudden, the answer goes the other way. The issue is also less salient for pro-EU voters than pro-Brexit voters. Finally, the moment we ask to join the SM or EU, the Conservatives will say they would scrap it when they come back to power. So, the EU will not waste its time when it has so many other priorities.

We will know when the public really wants back in the EU because the Conservatives will have to start talking about it seriously. There are currently zero Conservative MPs doing so. There was Tobias Elwood in the last Parliament, standing alone, but he’s gone now.

Fi Cooper : What do you think about the future of farming and fishing if Labour continues to refuse to join the CU and SM?

Fishing and farming both seem to have very different attitudes towards Brexit. If reports are to believed, there was overwhelming support for a hard Brexit from fishermen, who are now moaning that they have been screwed over, and yet they still insist that the hard Brexit is the right decision. I don’t know what you can do to help an industry that doesn’t understand that it was never going to get access to the EU market (where most British caught fish goes) whilst denying access to EU fishing vessels.

Farming is different, because many farmers did understand the damage that would be caused and, I think, welcome any moves that ease trade barriers, including rejoining. They will also be keen on the veterinary agreement, if the Government can arrange it.

There is also currently a risk that, without proper standards controls, which we still do not have, that we are at a higher than acceptable risk of importing a disease which could devastate whole sections of our farming industry.

But without help, there’s a worry they will have to scale back, meaning we are forced to import yet more food, or farm more intensively.

Lisa Burton : The recent riots were difficult to watch, but also not unexpected, considering certain media reporting and the political environment for the past few years, particularly since Brexit. Will Labour consider press reform going forward, and how will the government respond to reform UK MPs intent on stirring up further division?

Stella Creasey :My community was directly affected by the threat of violence. We didn’t have any violence, but we did take to the streets as a community, and stood round our local mosques. We stood together because people were so divided, and this didn’t happen in a vacuum. For some time now, I’ve been very worried about the rise of the far right and of far-right rhetoric, both online and offline. It’s been shaping a number of debates locally, and it was an incredibly scary time. I’m very proud to represent a very diverse community. I’m very proud of the fact that when that pressure came, people were very clear that it was not welcome here, but acutely conscious that we don’t want to get to the point where these things are happening in the first place.

It’s not that we should simply be proud that if put under pressure in the UK, people reject this type of politics. We shouldn’t get to the point where the pressure is coming in the first place. With that in mind, one of the conversations I’ve been having with people for some time, as Chair of the Labour Movement for Europe (LME) is that you are talking about what President Trump is doing. You’re talking about who he’s talking to in British politics. But have you seen what’s happening in Europe? Have you seen what’s happening with Orban, with Le Pen, with Meloni, and what’s happening in France?

I am very concerned that the left has been complacent about the idea that far right extremism, Islamophobia, racism, wouldn’t take seed in our political discourse. For too long, the left has that said these are extremes, just ignore them, don’t platform them. We have to confront them. But I don’t think this is about press reform, though there are other reasons why we need to talk about press reform.

The reason my community was put under pressure was because somebody circulated via WhatsApp a list of 60 immigration lawyers that were going to be targeted next. That is not the traditional print media, or even a forum that has some modicum of regulation.

I’m not suggesting that there isn’t an issue about press reform that we need to address. I know people have very great concerns about GB news, for example, and its impartiality. I think there are questions about where you blur the line between opinion and fact, and that’s online and offline. It’s to recognize that the way in which the far right is organizing is not through traditional forums and media. So that debate, that discourse, is late to the mainstream media rather than generating the mainstream media. What do I mean by that? I mean it’s as much as in your local Facebook groups. It’s in the Telegram groups. It’s in the WhatsApp messages that calls for a necessary different response.

If we load this solely onto press reform, I fear we will be too late. We’ll be too late in calling for a defense of free speech that recognizes if 50% of the conversation is terrified, because there is violence, because there is intimidation, because there is this constant drumbeat that whatever the problem is, the answer is, immigration is the issue? Actually, we’re not getting to the source of it, and we’re not challenging where that’s coming into modern political discourse. And I say that as somebody who now spends more of her time in WhatsApp groups with local residents than actually on even Twitter/X, I mean, X feels, you know, 10 years ago now, for me now.

A separate issue is regarding the role of politicians and the questions of standards. And I think there are some very interesting questions about our roles and our responsibilities. In terms of leadership of that debate, I have called for a national conversation about accountability for all of us. We all have to be accountable for what we are doing, to challenge the rhetoric, to challenge those ideas. Hope not Hate have got some very interesting research on this that is also an accountability for all MPs of all elected professions. I am somebody who has already debated, discussed and disagreed with the Reform MPs in Parliament, but I will hold them to the same standards that I will hold politicians in all political parties for the consequences of their actions, as I expect myself to be held.

Clarissa Killwick :Thanks to Brexit, I, for a number of years, lost my vote, but I was able to vote again in the UK. In the past, Labour were not in favor of lifting the 15 year rule for overseas voters. So has there been a change of heart now, or are we at risk of losing this important right again?

Stella Creasey : The absolute honest truth is, I suspect, that the debate around electoral reform in this country will be more rooted in wondering about electoral registration and about voter ID than the 15-year rule. We saw quite a marked impact on certain groups in society about their ability to take part, and I know the Electoral Commission is looking at that.

I think we have to see what the Electoral Commission comes back with in terms of whether or not this is a practical solution. I understand and appreciate what you’re saying about you had a vote. It would be remiss of me not to say I want to see what the Electoral Commission says first.

Steve Wilson : Do you believe proportional representation would be a prerequisite for rejoining the Single Market, the Customs Union and/or the EU and what’s the position of the Labour Movement for Europe on that particular subject?

Stella Creasey : As to whether proportional representation will be a prerequisite with the EU in order to rejoin the single market, or would be part of the negotiating discussion, I’m not aware of any examples in which the electoral system being used has been part of the negotiations, e.g. in discussions that other countries taking part in the accession process are having.

As for the position of LME, we are an affiliate organization, so we don’t take a particular position on policies. I can tell you what my position as the national chair is and say, I have always campaigned for electoral reform, not because I think it makes a single person vote, but because I think it is the right thing to do. I prefer AV+ because I do think the constituency link is important in our politics, especially with devolution, and I’ve always voted for electoral reform policies within the political process.

I also don’t think you can single out just the voting system. I think you’ve got a broader question about how you win the argument. I don’t think you can make Brexit work. We’ve always been clear about that. We can, we do think that you can resolve quite a lot of the problems that it has created in the first instance, and that should be the priority. We are around the edges of the single market, and we are affected by the single market. So, I always think it’s a bit of a canard to say that we’ve completely left it in the same way that inevitably, the trading decisions made in Europe affect what we can do here, because we are interconnected. You know, you can fight many things in life, but you can’t really fight geography. It’s just a thing.

The British public are far ahead of the political debate. They’ve moved on in 2016 and 2019 and they are also very clear that this was a democratic decision. As a result, you would need some kind of democratic moment to change it substantially. That doesn’t mean that that might not happen. Nobody can rule out anything, if we’ve learned anything in the last couple of years of politics, that things go up and down in all sorts of ways you never expected, not least Liz Truss becoming Prime Minister.

But it does mean that we face a very hard choice. What do you focus on? I talk to the businesses who can’t import things into the UK anymore, who are sitting with lorry loads of food sat in Calais, the people who are missing out on school trips, the businesses thinking about where they invest. They haven’t got the seven or eight years of negotiation time and a referendum that we need. What we have to ruthlessly do as people who recognize the damage that Brexit has done is work out how we can save what is essentially already on fire.

I’m very passionate about the Pan European Mediterranean convention, so passionate it probably puts people to sleep, frankly. But that is something I think we could negotiate to be part of, again, relatively quickly. Talk to the people in the Ukraine – they are on a fast track. That’s still a 7-8 year process. British businesses, British workers, do not have that length of time before damage that Brexit has done is going to be so great, we’ll never be able to do anything about it.

But I also think we do have to respect and recognize that if you are the European Union, you know, I would say Brexit is like the terrible man your aunt married 20 years ago, and you put up with him at Christmas every single year, and finally she divorced him. You know, you’re not going to invite him round for Easter cake, anytime soon. We have to respect and recognize just how much we trashed our status, the goodwill, the general sense that the UK was somebody you want to work with through Brexit, and the idea that we could very quickly get the time and energy and effort that our European partners would require for any sort of rejoin effort, I just think it’s a bit disrespectful to them. It is so important to me that we try and save what we can save, because any future conversation will be harmed by what is lost.

One of the things I worry about is if we spend our time still prosecuting the debates of 2016 and 2019 –  that means we’re not talking about what is possible in 2024, so we’re not giving people hope that you can actually sort some of these problems out. You can sort out the madness at the border, you can sort outwhat happens with Erasmus, you can sort out youth mobility. I believe that, I wouldn’t be doing this role if I didn’t.

We have to be really clear about the timescales, because we owe it to our European counterparts to recognize we’ve got a lot of ground to make up with them. That’s what’s really good about what the Government is doing right now. They are going round and proving not just that they’re not Liz Truss – which I know sounds like quite a low threshold – but that they are actually people you want to work with, that they get the concept of mutual interest, that they understand we’re asking a lot for people to pay us attention again because, we have been that awful man your aunt married.

Helen Johnston : All the recent surveys say that Labour voters and members overwhelmingly believe Brexit was a mistake and would like to see it reversed. Will the leadership come under pressure at the Labour Party Conference this autumn from grassroots members?

Stella Creasey : If you’re a member of the LME, you’re just about to get an email about our conference rally – we’ve got some really big hitters coming to speak, including Nick Thomas-Symonds, the person doing the negotiations with Europe. We’ve also got the new chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Emily Thornberry, who’s going to play an absolutely key role, because of a challenge in Parliament, since the European Scrutiny Committee has been disbanded. Sunday evening at conference, we have got a big, serious rally, which we are organizing to make sure that discussion of Europe is part and parcel of what goes on in the Labour movement.

If you join the LME, you can help strengthen my ability to keep those debates going and keep the discussions happening at a grassroots level. But just to blow our trumpet a little bit, there are now more LME parliamentarians than there are Conservative parliamentarians in Parliament. We are affiliated – formerly affiliated. If you’re a Labour Party member, you’ll know how serious this is to over half the constituencies across the country. We’ve got 1000s of members now. So that shows there is the interest and appetite. Absolutely, conference is a key event. That’s why we’re doing this rally. We haven’t been able to be upfront because of the election. It completely kiboshed the conference motion process for us to do a conference motion.

There’s an opportunity, if you are going to be in Liverpool, to show how serious you think this is, and that that relationship is there. And I cannot tell you how different that is to say a year and a half ago. It sometimes felt a bit of a lonely endeavor to be the person saying, can we talk about this? And people across the political spectrum felt wrung out. They felt so frustrated, so emotionally drained by the discussion. I understand why people didn’t want to have it. I just think we do need to do that now, and that is happening

Ruth Woodhouse : Keir Starmer has repeatedly stated, there will be no return to the single market, Customs Union or freedom of movement. Do you not believe that in an ever-changing world and political landscape, it is a mistake to rule out anything? 

Stella Creasey: I say we should absolutely look at all options, including the timelines. My concern about things like the Customs Union and the Single Market is the timeline, because I think of small businesses in my constituency who just said the point about Brexit for them is paperwork, and can they hold on for another 18 months? Possibly. Could they hold on for five years? No, that’s what I’m really worried about.

So, it’s a question for me. I think it’s right to look at everything. That’s why, for example, I have challenged the Labour Party to look again at the idea of youth mobility, because whilst what I thought the European Commission came up with wouldn’t work for us, because it wasn’t actually youth mobility – what it was was just one country. It didn’t include apprenticeships, for example, which I think is really important in all of this. The idea that there could be a scheme, I think, is something we should be exploring, and we’ll continue to have that debate and discussion within the LME.

Anon : How do we persuade those that believe immigrants are the cause of all their problems, that the fault lies elsewhere? 

Stella Creasey :One of the things I feel really passionate about, if we say and do nothing else, as progressive people, we have to be clear that the problem is not immigrants. The problem is politicians. It is politicians failing to show that in a world that is so complicated and that changes so quickly.

We have lived through lots of very destabilizing events, and at every turn, there have been people on the left and right who have looked to find somebody to blame. The right is very effective at blaming, starting with immigrants. Then it moves on to trans people, to people who need welfare support, then women. The challenge with that blame culture, that politics can thrive in, is absolutely it might win you a vote at the ballot box, but it doesn’t win you the consent for the change that needs to happen. So yes, it is a frustration for me that we have come to a point where people blame immigration when they really should be blaming politicians for being so problem focused rather than solution focused.

I came into politics to change the world. I think change is possible, but I’ll be honest with you, I sat on the Council of Europe refugee and immigration committee and used to bang my head in frustration on the desk because the conversation was long on an analysis of why immigrants were causing problems, and short on how could we collaborate together to make sure it was possible to help people equally and not put a burden on anybody. That conversation is not just a challenge within Europe, and tackling the far right politics. It’s a problem across politics. It’s not okay for politicians to just to tell us who’s caused the problem – rather they must say what they’re going to do about it.

Update 13 Oct 2024 – video now available for viewing from our You Tube channel by clicking here.