David Henig

Behind the daily dramas, the story of Brexit was that reality won over fantasy, that geography and inter-connectivity matter, and that the UK-EU negotiation is therefore permanent. These talks could come as members, angry divorcees, or a former couple returning to civility, but there are too many subjects of common interest for the relationship to be ignored as some would like.

Nor will the UK ever be dictating the terms, though it remains an important neighbour to Member States, but equally the EU won’t be able to ignore the relationship either. Once this all becomes clear, it is simply (!) a matter of the UK understanding what it wants and setting up everything required to achieve this, as against an EU for which such things are routine for good and bad. I fear though that such basics will continue to be ignored.

Gina Miller

Brexit was built on lies. The way back must be built on honesty.

Brexit was won on lies, by people with little interest in those left to live with the consequences. Ten years on, ordinary citizens are still paying, not least expats in Europe, who lost freedom of movement to a slogan.

The toll is stark: billions in lost exports, weaker growth, deferred investment. But the damage was also democratic, leaving a corrosive mistrust that populism thrives on.

Many of you want to rejoin, and I share that destination. But rejoining could take 10 to 15 years, while the poison festers. There is a faster way to heal. A Swiss option, the EU–Switzerland “Bilaterals III” deal of March 2026 is less elegant than membership but achievable in a few years and is not about surrender but serious, sensible action. By restoring cooperation, lifting barriers, and putting free movement back on the table, any future rejoin would come from far more stable, stronger ground.

The window is open – a Reform-led government could shut it within three years.

Anand Menon

Ten years on from the EU referendum and Brexit is still not ‘done’. Partly, that’s a function of how awful the EU is at joining with neighbours who do not aspire to join. Partly – ask the Swiss – it’s down to the fact that maintaining close ties requires almost permanent adaptation.

What is beyond doubt is that being outside the EU will mean we spend more time thinking about it than we ever did as a member state. The fact is – as neighbours of China and the US will confirm – living on the doorstep of a continental sized economy is never comfortable or easy. This is not necessarily a case for rejoining. Simply a warning that being out will bring its own challenges. 

Liz Webster

Ten years on, Brexit stands as one of the greatest acts of economic self-harm in modern British history.

As a farmer, I have watched British agriculture become the sacrificial lamb of Brexit. Brexit has opened our market to greater competition, while our European neighbours continue to benefit from collective support and strategic protection.

At a time of global instability, from climate shocks to conflicts threatening vital trade routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, Europe has recognised food as a strategic asset. European farmers are receiving additional support to maintain production and resilience. Meanwhile, British farmers face falling confidence, soaring costs and successive governments that refuse to put food security at the heart of national policy.

Brexit promises have all turned to dust, sovereignty has materialised as weakened resilience. More British voters now realise that in an increasingly uncertain world, strength comes from cooperation, not isolation, and want to rejoin the EU.

Richard Corbett

Contrary to what many politicians expected, the public didn’t rally behind Brexit once it had happened. A majority now say they support rejoining the EU. Leave voters see that Brexit bears no resemblance to what was promised.

Brexit has damaged the economy to an even greater extent than predicted, lost an annual £100bn of tax revenue, created extra red tape and inconvenience for UK citizens trading with or travelling to our neighbouring countries, and made it more difficult for Britain to participate in the wide range of matters handled multilaterally within the EU. This includes medical research, access to police databases, identifying and handling dangerous chemicals, food safety, trade sanctions, student exchanges, recognition of qualifications, and much else.

Furthermore, the geopolitical situation has changed, with a militarily aggressive Russia, an unreliable USA, and a more assertive China, making us increasingly aware of the interests and values we share across Europe. Time for more ambition!

Caroline Lucas

Looking back at the referendum 10 years ago, what can we learn? That top-down, technocratic arguments in favour of Remain didn’t work then (as some of us warned that they wouldn’t at the time) and certainly won’t work in the campaign to rejoin. Instead, we need to make a forward-looking, inclusive, values-based argument, based not only on the fact that it’s clearly in our best economic interests, but also on the idea of choosing a side. In an increasingly insecure world, with the US an ever more insular and unreliable partner, our future lies with our European neighbours, who still largely share our democratic values.

It’s time for the Government to tear up its red lines and start taking practical steps towards EU membership. The world has changed and so has public opinion. What better way for a new Prime Minister to signal a new beginning?

Andrew is a strategic communications specialist and campaigner focused on UK–EU mobility and citizens’ rights.
Having founded the “Save Freedom of Movement” campaign, Andrew also raises awareness of “90-in-180-day” issues with his “180 Days in Spain” initiative.
Andrew serves on the National Council of European Movement UK and is working to build a Coalition for Mobility in Europe.

Matt Burton: “Do you think UK politicians now better understand the real-life consequences of losing freedom of movement?”

Yes — understanding is improving.  We see this in the responses from MPs when our members write letters and we’ve had positive meetings too.

For years, Freedom of Movement of People was discussed in the UK as a mostly negative thing and only connected with immigration to the UK; never about Brits moving elsewhere or travelling easily without complex border control processes.

Increasingly, politicians are now hearing directly from families, students, businesses, musicians and part-year residents affected by the loss of FOM.  The stories are making a difference.

Before Brexit, I don’t think people spent their time thinking about treaty structures or EU Directives on Freedom of Movement. They simply lived their lives across Europe and travelled in a way that felt ordinary.

That is why the change has been so upsetting and disruptive for many people.

John Gaskell: “Is there anything that can be done for families with split residency, e.g. families consisting of a UK citizen and an EU one, with homes in both countries that are being forced to spend at least some of their time apart?”

This is one of the least discussed but most painful consequences of Brexit.

Many families built perfectly lawful cross-border lives under Freedom of Movement without ever imagining those arrangements could suddenly become difficult or impossible. They did everything the law asked of them.

And in many cases, people were not even affected until quite late in the Brexit process. Parents retired abroad. Children moved overseas and started families. People suddenly found themselves becoming grandparents living across borders when they didn’t expect to.

After almost 30 years of the Single Market, living and building families across borders had simply become normal for millions of people. And when “normal” suddenly changes that is hugely disruptive.

People who once lived across borders with ease have increasingly found themselves being pushed to decide where they belong — as though belonging in multiple places is somehow no longer acceptable.

In reality, that idea of being “at home anywhere” was exactly what the EU and Single Market were about.

So, I do think both the Withdrawal Agreement and the Trade & Cooperation Agreement have been woefully inadequate and would like to see both revisited or added to, especially if nothing bigger or better is going to happen for a while.

Philip Burton: “Why is the government reluctant to negotiate a visa waiver with individual EU countries or, if it is possible, with the EU to expand our 90 in 180 period?”

I think UK governments have been reluctant partly because recognising the issue would mean acknowledging that liberal mobility arrangements are genuinely useful.  That would have been at odds with their Brexit choices.

Before Brexit, millions of people built lives around the ability to move freely and flexibly across Europe. And once you begin recognising the practical value that liberal mobility and the Single Market brought to ordinary people’s lives, it raises wider questions about why the UK left those arrangements.

That is why I think talking about mobility is key to unlocking much of the wider Brexit impasse.

We still find ourselves wanting and needing to live/work/study in, sell to and buy from our closest neighbours.  As UK politicians begin to recognise the value of closer mobility arrangements again, I think their red lines will continue to fade away.

For a long time, the UK Foreign Office told us that it was not UK government policy to negotiate visa waivers for UK citizens.  But I haven’t seen that response for a while so maybe that policy has changed.

The bilateral visa-waivers for certain third countries such as New Zealand and Canada, are historic and most pre-date the Schengen Treaty, so it’s unclear how useful they are as a model for what’s possible now.  However, I think they are still noteworthy because they demonstrate that the 90-in-180 day problem was recognised as early as 1995 when there were only 7 Schengen countries.  Now there are 29.  They also demonstrate that different arrangements are fully compatible with the standard Schengen border processes as they are today.

Michael Sims: “Is there likely to be a change to the 90 in 180 days restriction in the future, with perhaps Spain recognising those who have owned properties for years before Brexit and our human rights to use our property when we like?”

It’s impossible to know.

I do believe change will happen. Although whether this specific issue is resolved directly or simply overtaken by bigger changes in UK–EU relations, remains to be seen.

When Brexit happened, if all the full-year residents in the UK or EU27 had been told on Brexit day to leave their homes, apply for visas and wait for permission to return, there would have been Europe-wide outrage. But that is effectively what happened to many part-year dwellers — and their situation was treated as politically invisible.

In Spain, the problem is compounded further by the lack of a suitable visa that lets someone spend far less than 182 days in Spain but more than 90 days in the Schengen area combined.  You might have work that takes you regularly to Germany for 40 days, a family visit to France for 30 days and a holiday in Italy or Greece for 15 days and be unable to enter Spain for more than a few days.

Our campaign is about the people, not the property: it’s not about the assets you owned but is about the decisions you made while an EU citizen.

We also hope the work will benefit a wider community of people too, including all travellers after Brexit – in both directions. I hope the government eventually expands its thinking around youth mobility because young people will want and expect mobility that lasts well beyond the age of 30.

Steven Wilson: “How do you square the circle between a campaign seeking for Brits to spend 6 months a year in the EU being seen as counter-productive by rejoin campaigns, when others feel the rules should be the same as they are for EU citizens travelling to the UK?”

I do not think our campaign competes with efforts to rebuild closer UK–EU relations.

In many ways, it complements them.  We are demonstrating the lived human impact of losing mobility in a way that people from many different backgrounds and professions can relate to. That is why we focus much more on stories of lived experience than specific solutions.

Keeping people apart for another decade probably won’t do anything to help UK–EU relations.

We agree that rules for British travellers to Spain should ideally be the same as they are for Spanish citizens travelling to the UK.

One of the things we are asking for (if politicians won’t restore mutual Freedom of Movement yet) is for visitor arrangements for UK travellers to Spain to mirror the arrangements Spanish citizens already enjoy in the UK, which is up to 6 months each time they visit.

Lisa Burton: “Your work brings together diverse groups – seasonal workers, retirees, freelancers; how do you unify such different interests under one campaign?”

Underneath the differences, the core issue is often very similar.

Whether it is retirees, freelancers, split families, seasonal workers or business owners, all relied in different ways on the ability to move and maintain lives across Europe with relative ease.

Visas (if they even exist) get in the way of that.

That is one reason I am trying to help build a broader coalition for mobility across Europe — bringing together people and sectors who may experience these problems differently, but whose underlying need for mobility is often remarkably similar.

David Eldridge: “What are the chances of Labour including the restoration of Freedom of Movement (or even rejoining the EU altogether) in their next manifesto?”

That’s the “million euro question” and it is difficult to predict, but I do think the political conversation is gradually shifting.

The reasons we joined the EEC (now EU) in the first place have not gone away.

Over time, I think pressure for closer cooperation with Europe will continue to grow.

Whether that leads directly to restoring Freedom of Movement or eventually rejoining the EU remains uncertain, but I do not think the current settlement feels stable or sustainable in the long term.  From recent media activity, it looks to me like we are being prepared for some big shifts to happen.

You only have to look at the long queues in some airports to see what a political problem this must be for the government.

Anon: “As the public become increasingly aware of the costs and limitations of a Brexit reset, are they becoming increasingly accepting of a full rejoin campaign, rather than the current step-by-step approach?”

I think we are on a path that necessarily winds around the forest.

We have to bring people on the journey with us, and that may involve a few diversions and “going round the houses” to pick up more passengers along the way.

That is why I don’t see the discussions around liberal mobility arrangements, youth mobility or joining the Single Market as distractions or delays. I think they are probably necessary steps on that journey to our politicians realising we just need to rejoin the EU.

The public already knows.  It’s just our politicians that need to catch up.

Next Month

To commemorate the anniversary of the Brexit referendum, six former contributors will be giving us their thoughts on Brexit ten years on. Tune in next month to read what they have to say.