Former plumber and gas engineer, Hannah Spencer, was elected as the new Green Party MP for Gorton and Denton in February this year. Since taking up her role in parliament, she has advocated for more “people who do jobs like mine” to follow in her footsteps. This, she says, would provide better representation to “normal people” rather than from career politicians and “posh boys”.

Spencer has been vocal about how her background contrasts with the lifestyles of her colleagues and has highlighted an “out of touch” and “unprofessional” culture within Westminster.

Hannah Spencer riles fellow MPs with attack on parliament’s drinking culture

[image or embed]

— The Guardian (@theguardian.com) 27 April 2026 at 18:59

Westminster drinking culture

The latest topic of parliamentary cultural behaviour to come under Spencer’s scrutiny has been the freedom of MPs to access alcohol – and cheaply at that – while working. She criticised the “normalised” consumption of alcohol in Westminster, stating that she could “smell the alcohol” on MPs in between votes. Spencer also argued that a cleaner or bank worker would be sacked if returning to work smelling of booze, but said MPs, who are in charge of making vital national decisions, treat it as a “pantomime”.

Her comments have provoked considerable comment, from both sides of the argument. Yet, it’s hardly the first time similar issues have been raised

Those in favour

Arguments for maintaining the status quo have come mainly from MPs themselves, but not exclusively. A number of Labour MPs have defended the current culture due to the frequent long hours that MPs are required to work.

Neil Coyle, Labour MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, said he hadn’t had a drink for 4 years (following his own unfortunate comeuppance), but didn’t believe an alcohol ban was necessary. Labour MP for Bolsover, Natalie Fleet, said that the smell of “fags and beer” was one of the things that made work in Westminster a “tiny bit normal”. (A voluntarily-adopted smoking ban applies in Westminster, except for specific areas).

Reform UK Limited leader, Nigel Farage – so often photographed with a pint in his hand – has also jumped on the bandwagon. Farage mocked Spencer’s stance, suggesting that, with the Greens’ progressive attitude towards legalising drugs, she would have no problems with MPs smelling of marijuana, as long as they didn’t smell of alcohol – an argument the Greens have been quick to dismiss.

The News Agents journalist, Jon Sopel said that “back in the day” it would have been “amazing to meet an MP who didn’t smell of alcohol”. So, if it was ok then, what’s the problem now? He added that “no one votes the wrong way because they’ve had a pint”. Maybe so, but is anyone seriously suggesting that MPs are saying ‘no’ to a second or a third one?

"No one votes the wrong way because they've had a pint… It'd be amazing to meet an MP who didn't smell of alcohol back in the day"

Green MP Hannah Spencer has sparked debate after criticising MPs drinking inside Parliament – so, should it be banned?

www.thenewsagents.co.uk/article/shou…

[image or embed]

— The News Agents (@thenewsagents.co.uk) 27 April 2026 at 19:00

Those against

A common thread from those that feel drinking on the job is inappropriate and unprofessional, is what happens outside of Westminster. The argument in favour of the current drinking culture has focused mainly on MPs’ long and late hours, but so many other professions can make that same claim: doctors, nurses, bus drivers, police, the fire service, lorry drivers, air traffic controllers. To name but a few. Regardless of the fact that getting drunk, or even a little tipsy, at work would be a disciplinary matter, likely resulting in being fired, what member of the public would want the services of a less-than-sober surgeon or taxi driver?

Green Party leader Zack Polanski defended a drinking ban saying, “the idea that MPs can go for a drink and then make decisions on 69 million people’s lives – and not be doing that sober – will seem very strange to the public”.

Alliance party MP, Sorcha Eastwood, said she had worked in Tesco, manufacturing, the health service and construction, all of which had long hours, mostly low pay and lots of pressure. She questioned whether, in the place where MPs make laws for all other workers, is it really “OK for us to drink during work?”

Parliament’s own watchdog, the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, has said the drinking culture in Westminster has been a “frequent factor” fuelling inappropriate behaviour, and that alcohol consumption is “leading to intimidating behaviour like shouting and swearing”.

MPs are human so they deserve an alcoholic drink whilst working?

NHS workers, often work for 12 hours plus and would never dream of this…

Let's not even get started on the pay disparity between an MP and a nurse 👇 https://t.co/sqeVEFHqxZ

— NHS Nurses (@SocialistNHS) April 27, 2026

One rule for them, one rule for the rest of us

Regardless of the arguments from both sides of the political spectrum, perhaps what’s more important is what the public think. In a recent YouGov poll, the public came down strongly in favour of MPs having to abide by the same rules as the rest of the working population, with 76% thinking drinking on duty was somewhat/completely unacceptable and only 15% believing it was somewhat/completely acceptable.

With Green MP Hannah Spencer criticising fellow MPs for drinking alcohol ahead of evening votes in Parliament, the British public likewise disapprove – 76% brand this unacceptable, including 52% "completely unacceptable"

yougov.com/en-gb/daily-…

[image or embed]

— YouGov (@yougov.co.uk) 27 April 2026 at 17:48

But drinking while on duty at Westminster is only one of a number of issues whereby MPs seem to get a much more preferential deal than the average worker.

While the House of Westminster bars are most likely the cheapest place to buy alcohol in the whole of central London, MPs and peers also have the luxury of subsidised (by us, the taxpayers) workplace restaurants, as well as generous expenses, including pricey accommodation in London (although, is there any other kind?). Not to mention annual pay rises – awarded by themselves, to themselves – above the level of inflation: something so often denied to many other groups of workers.

If those benefits weren’t enough to prove our representatives have a better employment deal than your average worker, then perhaps we should also remember that they only attend Westminster 4 days a week, and between 170 and 250 days a year.

Perhaps, then, if MPs spent a little less time improving their own lot and a little more time improving ours, we might feel a little more tolerant of ‘the odd pint’ while on duty. Bottoms up!

We had a huge campaign against drinking and driving.

I think we need one against drinking and working.

And by we I mean the Westminster bubble of privileged MPs who get discount booze.

It has been illegal for the rest of us for decades.

— BladeoftheSun (@bladeofthes.bsky.social) 27 April 2026 at 17:39

Brexiters are raging over the latest government efforts to ‘reset’ Brexit. Plans for the UK to align more closely with EU rules are being drowned out by cries of ‘betrayal’ from the right and demands for more ambition from the left. With Starmer being criticised from all directions over his Brexit ‘reset’ policy, isn’t it time to risk a bolder plan?

@pimlicat.bsky.social “We simply don’t have any time to waste on aligning at speed with our largest trading partner: the one lever our government can pull to not just stem the losses but turn the tide.”

www.bestforbritain.org/voters_actio…

[image or embed]

— Best for Britain (@bestforbritain.org) 13 April 2026 at 13:45

Resetting EU/UK relations

With the government’s Brexit code of silence now firmly lifted, the prime minister has acknowledged the ‘deep damage’ Brexit has caused the UK economy. Starmer has stressed that a “stronger, closer relationship with Europe is in the UK’s best interest”, particularly at this volatile moment in time.

As part of the ongoing Brexit ‘reset’, new legislation will see the UK more closely aligned to single market rules, including accepting EU food standards, cutting red tape and improving trade, to the tune of an estimated £1bn. The legislative process will echo earlier pre-Brexit proceedings, when the government adopted hundreds of EU laws. What’s different now is that the UK no longer has voting rights and can no longer shape EU legislation.

New EU rules will be introduced using “secondary legislation”, not requiring the same level of scrutiny or parliamentary involvement as primary legislation. That lack of scrutiny has proved controversial, although the government insists peers and MPs will still retain a “role” in approving the bill.

The Brexiters are raging because Keir Starmer plans for the UK to align more closely with some EU rules.

Yes, it will make the UK a rule-taker, but that is the fault of Brexit and Brexit politicians. They were repeatedly warned this would happen.

Brexit cannot end Britain’s… pic.twitter.com/YEJGCfOcYv

— Nick Reeves #RejoinEU #NAFO #FBPE (@nickreeves9876) April 13, 2026

Brexit “betrayal”

Apart from complaining that parliament is being sidelined, Nigel Farage has described the plans as “a backdoor attempt to drag Britain back under European Union control”. He has vowed to oppose the legislation “every step of the way” and claims “it is a total betrayal of the Brexit vote”.

Perhaps the Reform leader has conveniently forgotten promises made by the Leave campaign before the referendum – that we would keep our single market rights. Had that been the case, Farage would have no need to complain at Starmer’s attempts to restore at least some of what was lost.

Of course, it’s not just Reform that is opposed to the legislation. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch criticised the plan as “offering the worst of both worlds” (at 3:56) while Sir Iain Duncan Smith described aligning with EU rules without having a say as both “demeaning and damaging” [subscription needed]. Plus, the usual right-wing nonsense about “sovereignty”.

WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, PRIME MINISTER?

Apparently, ministers are bracing themselves to face down opposition to “dynamic alignment” with the EU from those who “scream treason” over the powers in a new EU-UK reset bill.

STARMER IS TRULY UNFATHOMABLE!

Why is he worrying what the… pic.twitter.com/liwEhc380Y

— REJOIN CAMPAIGN (@sonofr) April 13, 2026

EU reset too much/not enough

While Starmer’s ‘reset’ might be too much for the Brexiters, it’s not enough for many pro-Europeans. After months of silence on the subject, the government’s changing attitude towards Brexit has certainly been welcomed. However, the pace of the reset seems painfully slow, and the insistence on sticking to Labour’s ‘red lines’ – no single market, no customs union, no rejoining -appears inflexible, cowardly and foolish.

In an attempt to stem the tide of failing support, Labour has tried emulating Reform and the far-right, to no avail. Having finally appeared to accept it was losing more support to the left than the right, the government has now changed tack but is still saddled with poor comms and a lack of nerve. While his recent actions regarding Iran may have tempered his disapproval ratings, Starmer’s popularity is still through the floor. He is not only unpopular with both sides of the Brexit debate but is failing to please traditional Labour voters who have moved on to the more socialist, environmentally friendly Greens.

What are we waiting for?

Starmer’s latest legislation will undoubtedly help the British economy, improve EU/UK relations, and limit the damage of Brexit. But why stop there? With the majority of the British public now in favour of rejoining the EU, what are Labour so afraid of? Support for Brexit is dying off (literally), and nobody born this century voted for Brexit. As for the reception we might receive from our European neighbours, EU countries have been going out of their way to encourage our return, not least the new Hungarian Prime Minister.

With changing public opinion, Brexit is likely to play a considerable role at the next general election. Are we likely to see a return to the single market, customs union and/or the EU itself in Labour’s manifesto? Based on the evidence of the last 2 years, I’m not sure they have the courage. Or at least, Starmer doesn’t.

But why wait? The longer we remain isolated, the more damage Brexit will do and the harder it will be to ‘take back control’. With Labour – and Starmer in particular – so unpopular, and so criticised over Brexit, what have they got to lose by going the whole hog and taking a stand, before someone else beats them to it?

Farage says we are trying to get into the EU via the back door. As a proud nation with much to offer, we should be marching up to the front door and striving to be back where we belong – at the heart of Europe.

The way things stand, Starmer might just as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. Or forever be remembered as the pro-EU PM that didn’t have the balls to do what was in the best interests of his country, and his party.

Distance us further from the EU – suicide

Leave things as they are – meh

Get closer to the EU but without a say – feels rather self defeating

Rejoin the EU and become a full participant in every decision – only sensible way forward

— Edwin Hayward (@edwinhayward) April 13, 2026

Nigel Farage is outraged! The cause of his latest indignation? A decision by the “PC mad, loony” Bank of England (BoE) to remove historical figures from British banknotes, replacing them with British wildlife. A decision, Farage claims, that is the very “definition of woke”.

i, for one, am delighted that we finally have a definition of “woke”

[image or embed]

— shardcore (@shardcore.org) 12 March 2026 at 09:23

Fisticuffs over a fiver

Farage’s focus thus far has been on the proposed removal of Winston Churchill from the £5 note. Having regularly invoked Churchill in the framing of his own political arguments, he has been known, on occasion, to misrepresent the former prime minister’s views, not least on Europe.

It is unclear whether Farage is equally concerned about the removal of JMW Turner, Jane Austen or Alan Turing, assuming he’s even heard of them. As for Farage’s attitude towards wildlife, his support for fox hunting and badger culling is perhaps all you need to know.

Manufactured outrage

It will come as no surprise that Reform UK Limited has been joined on this particular soapbox by the Tories. Kemi Badenoch described the decision as “deeply depressing that under Labour our national heroes are considered too ‘divisive’ to be on banknotes”, despite the fact that the decision was made by the Bank of England, not the government.

Writing for The Telegraph, former Conservative cabinet minister, Tom Tugendhat described the proposal as telling “a dismal story of national decline”, adding on X that it amounted to “forgetting who we are, what made our country great and who we can become”.

More surprising was to see leader of the LibDems, Ed Davey, also jump on the bandwagon, claiming this was the “worst time to do this”. He obviously hadn’t read the brief explaining that it would be a “few years” before the new notes enter into circulation.

Winston Churchill helped defeat fascism in Europe. He deserves better than being replaced by a badger 🦡 pic.twitter.com/D0ryOQYSTu

— Ed Davey (@EdwardJDavey) March 11, 2026

A relatively modern tradition

With so much fuss being made over his replacement, many would be forgiven for thinking that Churchill had featured on a fiver since the second world war. In fact, non-royals have only featured on British banknotes since 1970, and Churchill only for the past 10 years.

Considering how often we hear cries of ‘patriotism’, or lack thereof, from right-wingers, why did we not hear similar protestations when other historic figures – not least Elgar, of Land of Hope and Glory fame – were removed from our currency. As for Darwin, Shakespeare, Dickens, Nightingale and other famous Britons, I suspect they too would fall under Farage’s inaccurate definition of ‘woke’.

The Bank of England has only put non royals on bank notes since 1970.

Farage and Co. losing their minds over a relatively modern tradition.

— Otto English (@ottoenglish.bsky.social) 11 March 2026 at 23:36

The public choice

What has been completely overlooked by the outrage brigade is the background to the decision, and the involvement of the British public. The BoE’s chief cashier confirmed that banknotes are regularly redesigned “to increase counterfeit resilience”, adding that the new proposals were a way to “celebrate different aspects of the UK”.

As to the involvement of the public, a consultation process asked 44,000 people which themes they would like to see on the next banknotes. The outcome was that 60% chose ‘nature’ as one of their preferred options, with ‘architecture and landmarks’ coming a close second with 56%. Some way behind in third place was ‘historical figures’ with 38%, so you could say that Churchill’s removal was the “will of the people”. A small detail that Farage has chosen to overlook.

My humble submission to the new Bank of England with concepts for the new bank notes to please both sides.

[image or embed]

— Tom Wilson (@feedthedrummer.bsky.social) 11 March 2026 at 14:57

The wrong focus

With the wealthy in our country continuing to get richer at the expense of the less well off, if there’s an argument to be had over banknotes, this isn’t it. Farage’s fabricated outrage only serves to stir up discontent, the only thing he’s any good at. It does nothing to solve the problems of those whose only concern regarding British banknotes is whether they’ll have enough of them to pay their bills.

Farage, with his many sources of income and seemingly unlimited expenses and donations, does not have those worries. Nor, it seems, will he ever understand what it feels like to be in that precarious position. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a few banknotes short of a full wallet.

When I first wrote about the anti-migrant policies of the Home Office in 2022, I had hoped that, come election day, they would be abandoned along with the Tory government. Surely a new Labour government, with a large majority and promises of ‘change’, would show us a better, more compassionate way. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Home Office is getting it wrong

Less than two years since the election, and already on their second home secretary, the government is maintaining the toxic rhetoric and cruel policies of its predecessor, with a few nasty tweaks of its own. The current home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, seems determined to make life as difficult as possible for those seeking asylum, and is even threatening the rights of those already granted leave to remain.

Against the back-drop of a Home Office culture that seems to turn all incumbents towards the far-right, a new report Time for Change by prominent migration expert Zoe Gardner, in conjunction with Another Europe is Possible, proves there is another, better way.

HOT OFF THE PRESS: Time for Change is here!
Sick of the constant demonisation of migrants?
Want to see an alternative plan?
Our new report by @zoejardiniere.bsky.social outlines 9 steps to a system that delivers dignity for all.
Read it here: www.anothereurope.org/time-for-cha…

[image or embed]

— Another Europe Is Possible (@anothereurope.bsky.social) 5 December 2025 at 12:01

Time for Change

Billed as a “sensible and pragmatic alternative to the Labour government’s current immigration policy proposals”, the report describes the current approach as ‘a failure’, with neither the needs of migrants nor our communities being met.

The report’s alternative approach starts by recognising that with an ageing population, the UK needs immigration in order to fund public services and grow the economy. While the full report runs to 20 pages, a four-page summary details a ‘9-point plan for change’. This breaks down into three priority policy areas which collectively would “reduce irregular arrivals, drive up working conditions for all, and build robust and cohesive communities”. The report has been well received by senior Labour backbenchers, who we can but hope will apply pressure up the line

Priority policy areas: asylum

Under the heading of ‘Asylum’, the report proposes: safe regulated routes to replace irregular arrivals; the right to work and speedier asylum decisions; a not-for profit accommodation system.

The successful visa pathway that was opened for Ukrainians proved that speeding up the process was possible, despite the scale. The recommendations suggested that other clearly unsafe countries, such as Sudan and Eritrea, should also face a ‘light-touch’ approach, enabling faster decision making, integration and employment. In case you were wondering, the average wait for an asylum claim decision is around 400 days.

While waiting for a decision, asylum seekers should be housed in suitable accommodation provided and maintained by local authorities, and not by private companies seeking to extract huge sums and a healthy profit from government.

"Creating a poorer, more vulnerable migrant class of workers who have no long-term stake in our society worsens wages & conditions for everyone & increases resentment towards immigrants."
This. This. This.
@zoejardiniere.bsky.social is spot-on on why Government's hostile migration plans hurt us all.

[image or embed]

— Asylum Matters (@asylummatters.bsky.social) 7 February 2026 at 10:55

Work

The report proposes: a reform of labour inspections and protections from workplace exploitation; the scrapping of restrictive employer-sponsored visas; and integrating asylum seekers into the points-based visa system.

The proposals include decoupling the enforcement of labour standards from immigration control, ending the loopholes that prevent migrant workers from benefitting from efforts to tackle exploitation, low pay and trafficking. In order to prevent a two-tier workforce, employer-sponsored visas – which tie migrants rights to live in the country to a single employer – should be scrapped and replaced with a points-based system. This would allow asylum seekers to accrue points towards potentially earning a visa.

Integration

The report recommends three final points regarding integration: a simplified pathway to settlement after five years; the reintroduction of birthright citizenship and a reduction of integration barriers for children; and embracing a positive narrative about immigration, diversity and belonging.

The frequent changes to the visa system – described as “unnecessarily punitive and complex” – are effectively pulling the rug from under the feet of settled immigrants, creating fear, stress and often poverty and debt. Simpler pathways to settlement would “promote inclusion and economic empowerment, reduce the number of people who become undocumented”, and would better reflect public opinion. Many of the British public believe that those born in the UK should automatically be entitled to citizenship, despite what Reform UK might suggest.

The final point, and an extremely important one, is the need to change the narrative surrounding immigration. The divisive rhetoric of Brexit and the far-right has too long dominated any conversations on immigration, while ignoring the benefits to the country, both economically and culturally.

“It is our duty to become the welcoming and tolerant society that our own relatives would have hoped to find on the other side of our borders”

[image or embed]

— Fabio Chiusi (@fabiochiusi.bsky.social) 6 February 2026 at 08:54

Breaking the mould

When Gardner participated in Bremain in Spain’s Bremainers Ask last August, she was asked which countries have an immigration policy that could work as a model for the UK. My home of the last 18 years – Spain – was her answer. She described Spain’s approach as having “a very positive overall outlook towards immigration and work” and highlighted an integration process which includes Spanish language classes, integration classes and training matched with work opportunities.

Following an Immigration Regulation Update in 2025 – which overhauled procedures for foreign workers and students – Pedro Sánchez, the prime minister, has now gone further with his 2026 Regularization (Amnesty) policy which will see 500,000 undocumented migrants being granted a 1-year visa for work and residency, provided they have no criminal record and have lived in Spain for at least five months (as at the end of last year).

There is no question that Sánchez’s promotion of immigration, and his positive rhetoric, have been a key factor in Spain’s economic growth – currently the fastest in the Eurozone. It’s an approach that could work equally well in the UK, if only the hearts and minds of our government were open to the possibilities.

As Gardner says, “You can do something different. You can pave the way. You can be a leader,” just as Spain has. Or you can continue down the rabbit-hole of far-right, cruel, ultimately unsuccessful and immoral policies that will damage the UK economy and our reputation abroad.

So, what’s it to be, Mr. Starmer? More of the same, or a much needed ‘change’ like you promised?

Have you ever fancied yourself as a member of parliament? Or perhaps you’ve dreamed of a role in your local council, approving tax increases, revoking net-zero policies or betraying election promises. Then you’ve come to the right place!

Reform UK – formerly the Brexit Party/UKIP – are looking for new recruits across the country.

Responsibilities

As an MP or a local councillor, your role will be to represent your local constituents. Whether you choose ever to meet with them will be entirely at your discretion. However, you will be expected to respond to the occasional email or have your assistant do so on your behalf.

As a Reform UK politician, you would have the power to vote for or against new legislation – the decision as to whether to attend parliament in order to do so is entirely personal (and rarely employed).

Your role would include the promotion of MAGA-style values in a British setting, including the sharing of the leadership’s wise words on social media. (Ranting is permitted; explanations of policies are not required).

Background

Reform UK welcome new recruits from all walks of life, though a private education (or the wherewithal to pay for one) would be a bonus. Attendance at a boarding school, and therefore familiarity with a certain kind of discipline, would be most helpful.

Our doors are especially open to those with previous government/local government experience, regardless of former political affiliations. In fact, Tories are particularly welcome, as long as they are prepared to contradict any former negative comments about our party (or deny ever having said them, regardless of proof to the contrary).

NB. Former MPs need not be concerned about any run-ins with parliamentary authority, such as breaches of the ministerial code, unpaid tax issues etc. Such experiences will be of value, rather than a hindrance, to your successful application.

Skills

At Reform UK, we do things a little differently. We do not expect our representatives to devote many hours a week to their parliamentary role. In fact, we respect members taking time away from their role in order to satisfy the demands of any/all of their other jobs being held concurrently.

As for required skills, we only ask that you are argumentative, anti-immigration, evasive when asked direct questions and willing to offend (the media especially). Hand gestures are acceptable – finger-pointing absolutely essential.

You boy!
If you see any failed Tories in the dole queue send them over here.
Tell them I’m getting the old gang back together. pic.twitter.com/Q7us0wEEng

— Mark Cockerton (@CockertonMark) January 13, 2026

Salary and benefits

MPs will receive a salary of £94,000 per annum (updated annually above the rate of inflation), plus generous expenses, including thousands of pounds for living costs, travel and London rent (but only for you, not your horses, sadly).

Benefits include heavily subsidised meals, on those rare occasions members find themselves in the Palace of Westminster.

Local councillors are not paid a salary but receive taxable allowances to cover time and expenses. These vary according to the area, but there would be plenty of opportunities to garner additional remuneration locally. Probably.

Despite a lack of coherent policies, or any strategy to speak of, Reform UK is now home to such well-respected former Tories as Andrea Jenkyns, Lee Anderson, Danny Kruger, Ann Widdecombe, former chancellor (if only for 48 hours) Nadhim Zahawi, and, after being unceremoniously frogmarched off the Tory benches, Robert ‘Honest Bob’ Jenrick.

With their brains, experience and willingness to continue the fight despite former failures, we have a good chance of winning the next general election, thanks to our wonderful first-past-the-post voting system.

If you love your country (or how it used to be), and regardless of whether you’re a former Tory, REFORM UK needs you!

Don’t delay, apply now! The future of our country, the sanctity of Brexit, and our leaders’ bank balances are at stake!

Open any right-wing media and you’ll observe the stale and erroneous cry of “Brexit betrayal”. Whether it’s from a former Tory minister, a GB news presenter or an Express ‘journalist’, the sour grapes attitude smacks of irony – a fact the authors seem unable to grasp.

Whether it’s a debate on a customs union, agreement on rejoining Erasmus or plans to ‘get closer’ to the EU, it seems any proposals aimed at limiting the damage of Brexit are fair game.

Customs union bill

In what was claimed as a “historic victory” by LibDem Leader, Ed Davey, a private members bill was narrowly passed on 9 December. The UK-EU customs union (duty to negotiate) bill, described by the Guardian as “tokenistic” and likely to have “no practical impact”, still managed to rattle the Brexiters. Lacking any arguments as to why a democratic parliamentary debate on a bespoke customs union with the EU would be a bad thing, the cries of betrayal rang hollow.

Whether the Brexiters believe it’s the (declining number of) Brexit supporters that are being betrayed, or the whole country, is not always clear – filling in the blanks has never been a Brexiter strongpoint. As to the fact that those advocating leaving the EU swore blind Brexit would not mean leaving the customs union or the single market, it’s clear the country has been betrayed, not just those expressing their outrage.

GB News and the other Farage-backing media are furious that we won the vote on our customs union bill yesterday.

They know they're losing the argument and that the tide is turning.

More and more people back our plans to rebuild Britain's trade with Europe and tackle the cost of living crisis.

[image or embed]

— Liberal Democrats (@libdems.org.uk) 10 December 2025 at 11:42

Erasmus+ programme

Following the news that, after months of negotiations, the UK is finally rejoining the Erasmus+ scheme, new cries of betrayal have been voiced. Those voices include the former Tory home secretary, Priti Patel, who claims that Labour are continuing to “betray Brexit” and “have consistently undermined the result of the 2016 referendum”. Patel also accused the government of “throwing away billions of pounds of hard-pressed taxpayers’ money” on rejoining Erasmus.

2025: Priti Patel says Labour adopting Erasmus is a betrayal of Brexit

2020: Priti Patel was Home Secretary when her boss Boris Johnson said Erasmus would not be taken away because of Brexit

[image or embed]

— Farrukh (@implausibleblog.bsky.social) 17 December 2025 at 21:52

It would appear that, along with other former Tory minsters and MPs, Patel has forgotten what her former leader, Boris Johnson, promised at the despatch box in January 2020 – that there was “no threat” to the Erasmus scheme. Understandable, I guess, when there were so many misrepresentations of the facts, so many betrayals, so many broken promises. As to the cost, Brexiters seemingly also forget we must now pay non-membership fees for the benefits and opportunities of inclusion in any EU programmes.

Closer ties

Over recent months, the government has changed tack regarding the mention of Brexit, having abandoned their code of silence. Where once the rhetoric was about ‘making Brexit work’, and a ‘reset’ of EU/UK relations, lately the damage of Brexit has been openly discussed, even by the PM and chancellor. Calls for closer ties that would help limit the damage or improve trade, however, are – to Brexiters at least – yet more evidence of a Brexit betrayal.

As Starmer takes baby steps to undo some of the damage of Brexit, the ‘Brexit Betrayal’ narrative is revived. It won’t wash this time! We need to go further and faster back to the heart of Europe! 🇪🇺

[image or embed]

— Graham Simpson (@grahambs.bsky.social) 1 December 2025 at 15:18

Whether Brexiters truly believe their cries of betrayal, or whether it’s just more noise from those with no arguments or credibility left, surely it’s time to challenge the rhetoric. While talk of closer ties is welcome, the reluctance of Labour to revisit their red lines, and the snail’s pace of any progress, continues to frustrate. Government’s adherence to the letter of their manifesto – while showing a welcome commitment to promises made – demonstrates an unwillingness to be flexible, even when the situation changes.

There’s no doubt that relations between the UK and the EU have improved since Brexit. Or that the government are committed to strengthening those bonds and working more closely together on common goals. However, an apparent willingness to side with the US could seriously impact any future plans, especially if the government favour American policies and standards over European ones.

Brexiters short of any convincing arguments or facts will continue to cry betrayal at the least provocation. If our government continues to acknowledge the damage of Brexit while simultaneously failing to offer any real solutions, it won’t just be those on the far-right complaining. Those of us of a more ‘woke’ persuasion will be screaming betrayal too!

You can’t take Brexiters seriously any more. None of them.

We should have zero respect for anyone who is happy to turn a blind eye to the damage & losses

The news about Erasmus+ prompted Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel to fulminate: “Labour continue to betray Brexit.

[image or embed]

— Bremain in Spain (@bremaininspain.com) 18 December 2025 at 11:09