We asked 6 former Bremainers Ask contributors to tell us their hopes and fears for the new year. In December, we heard from Gina Miller, Zoe Gardner and Naomi Smith. Now it’s the men’s turn …….

Anand Menon – Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs, Director of UK in a Changing Europe

Hopes for 2026 must, above all, be for those outside our country facing war and consequent unspeakable hardship. For all the problems we have in the United Kingdom, they are nothing to the fear and uncertainty of those facing domestic unrest or foreign interference.

And talking of international politics, this remains the potential deus ex machina that could render everything I say below ridiculous. A rupture with the Americans – and at the time of writing Europeans are figuring out how to respond to the threat of tariffs linked to the situation over Greenland – would change everything and make a rethink of relations with the EU imperative.

But to turn back to the situation at home, I must risk annoying readers by saying ambitious new plans intended to tighten links with the European Union are not a priority. This is for several reasons. One, I’m not convinced that there is any such scheme that is acceptable to both sides. Pick and mix alignment, as Keir Starmer seems to want (and on which some of the recent economic modelling we’ve heard so much about has been based), will doubtless be rejected by the EU.

Equally, rejoining the single market isn’t something the UK Government is willing to consider. Perhaps a case could be made for freedom of movement in a context of rapidly falling legal immigration (it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that some might make the case based on the preferability of European versus ‘other’ kinds of immigrants). Be that as it may, a Government that has struggled so hard to come to terms with the idea of a youth mobility scheme is not one that is about to make that case.

So, we are left with the contents of the ‘reset’ to date. These are far from trivial. But it remains to be seen whether potentially contentious talks over not only youth mobility but also the extent of alignment necessary for SPS and ETS deals can get over the line. And of course, we’ve got to hope that the more militant member states see sense over SAFE, at a moment when Europeans need to work together to improve their military capabilities more than ever.

As for the rest, even if this government, potentially under a new leader, decides to go further and faster, negotiations will take time, and the EU has shown no signs of a willingness to do the UK any favours. Talks will be tough and, particularly as the EU begins to negotiate its 7-year financial settlement, any deal will doubtless carry a hefty price tag. Not only this, but any benefits will likely not materialize for some time – certainly not ahead of the next General Election in 2029.

Rather, the focus for the next year must be on much needed domestic reform. It is still not too late for this moderate centre-left government with its whopping majority to address at least one of the severe problems – social care, over centralization, a regressive and growth-unfriendly tax system, the lack of adequate taxation of wealth (particularly property) to name but a few – that have dogged us for so long.

Now clearly, it is not too much to expect that our government should be able to walk and chew gum simultaneously. That is to say, there’s no reason why an ambitious domestic reform agenda should not be accompanied by equally energetic attempts to reinforce links with EU partners. My point here, however, is that, in terms of domestic politics at least, and with the proviso that Donald Trump may well change all that, the emphasis should be on the former rather than the latter.

The collapse of the political centre in the UK is the single greatest threat that faces our country domestically. Preventing that will involve not only showing genuine improvement in the issues the public cares about – notably the cost of living and the state of the NHS – but also addressing the structural barriers that have led to such anaemic economic progress for so long. The government’s priority should be to get its act together and come up with an agenda that genuinely fosters growth and addresses the long-term sapping of faith in politics that has afflicted us for so long. Focusing on the ‘reset’ is simply not the best way to do this.

David Henig – Leading authority on UK trade policy post Brexit

International rules, cooperation, and trade are under evident strain from a US President increasingly seeing his role as extortion. In this situation survival with limited damage becomes the first and in some ways only priority for countries across Europe who have been deeply allied if never entirely aligned with the US for 80 years. Overly excitable commentary about standing up to or jettisoning the US can best be seen as more attention-seeking than serious short-term politics.

Hope number one, then, is that this too will pass, that Trump’s powers will wane as mid-term elections approach, even if his ability to damage all of us remains worryingly high. There are some positive signs, trade has held up far better than many expected, and Ukraine has not been forced to concede to an invasion, close though both of these have seemed at times. US economic coercion seeking to change UK and EU regulations in return for lower tariffs is going to continue though, and governments need to continue what seems the right approach of ducking and weaving, however inelegant this may look.

Sensationalism is unfortunately the dominating operating model of European politics and media. This weakens the ability to respond to a world order clearly changing even before this US administration doubled down on its mobster mentality. Hoping this will change is sadly more ambitious than the idea of surviving Trump, but it would be nice if we saw more writers dealing with the world that is, rather than succumbing to the many alternatives including misplaced nostalgia, overegged terror, or simplistic immediate solutions.

Or perhaps I’m still scarred by a former commissioning editor for a respected political magazine telling me that there’s no market for serious policy analysis. Suffice to say I didn’t agree.

This then leaves to last the substance of how the UK and EU should be building an ongoing response to a world in which our role is diminishing. In broad terms there are well known answers which involve deepening partnerships in support of our values and using these, plus our continued economic strengths, to maintain relevance. Equally obvious are the obstacles that include the ongoing strength of national populism particularly destructive to the centre-right of politics, a related belief that traditional manufacturing or farming should be the priority, and leaders unable to convince their way through a complex policy landscape of multiple, often conflicting objectives and stakeholders.

Ideally, we would see a revival of politics as the method by which tough decisions are debated and made rather than pretended away. This would mean for example that those wanting closer UK-EU relations stop talking about a Customs Union as the latest simplism and address the key issues of contribution, shared vision, and movement of people. Or that counterparts in the EU try to move on from the scars of divorce and understand this relationship is not going away.

I’m neither particularly confident nor in a great position to help as a non-politician. Hopefully some of my work may help a little.

Peter Corr – Director and Founder of National Rejoin March

Going into 2026, I feel like a lot of people do: tired, frustrated, and still somehow stubbornly hopeful. Which is probably the most British political mood there is. Politics isn’t some abstract thing anymore. It’s in your food bill, your heating bill, and that quiet sense that things just don’t work as well as they used to — but we’re all expected to pretend this is fine.

In the UK, Brexit is no longer the shouting match it once was. It’s worse than that. It’s background noise. A constant drag. Less trade, less influence, less opportunity — and a political class that mostly wants to stop talking about it and move on. My fear is that we let them. That we quietly accept a smaller, poorer, more isolated country because reversing a bad decision would apparently hurt a few egos.

What gives me hope is that people aren’t buying it like they used to. The slogans wore off. Real life kicked in. And once people notice that the “sunlit uplands” look suspiciously like a lay-by off the hard shoulder, it’s hard to unsee it.

That’s why the Rejoin Ramble matters so much to me. Walking from London to Brussels isn’t about nostalgia or waving flags for the sake of it. It’s about saying, plainly and physically, that millions of people in the UK still believe cooperation works better than isolation. Delivering messages of hope to the EU from pro-Europeans here is a reminder that Brexit didn’t magically change who we are or where we belong. You don’t walk hundreds of miles unless you really mean it.

And then there’s the National Rejoin March in London on Saturday 20 June. I want it to be the biggest yet — and not just louder, but smarter. Confident. A movement that’s done apologising for existing. One that says: we were right to question this, and we’re right to want better.

Beyond the UK, the world feels… unstable, to put it politely. Trump-style politics rumbling back, complete with ego, grievance, and the sort of ideas you’d expect after three drinks — like casually talking about buying Greenland. It’d be funny if it wasn’t backed by real power and real consequences. My fear is that spectacle replaces seriousness again, and everyone else pays the price.

And then there’s Ukraine. A war that shouldn’t need explaining anymore. My hope for 2026 is simple: that Ukraine survives free and intact, and that Europe doesn’t lose its nerve. My fear is fatigue. That people confuse being tired of hearing about a war with the war somehow being over.

So yes, I’m angry. And worried. But I’m also hopeful, because hope isn’t passive. It’s walking, marching, organising, arguing, and refusing to shut up when you’re told it’s time to “move on”.

If 2026 is going to matter, I want it to be the year we stop whispering and start saying it clearly: Britain can do better. Europe matters. And together still beats going it alone.

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

Naomi Smith FCMA, Chief Executive Best for Britain

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zoe Gardner, UK immigration and asylum policy campaigner

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gina Miller, businesswoman, transparency and social justice campaigner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next month – Hopes and Fears for 2026  Part Two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marsha de Cordova has been the Labour MP for Battersea since 2017, serving in Keir Starmer’s Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Secretary for Women and Equalities. She is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group and has been Second Church Estates Commissioner since 2024.

Marsha is Co-Chair of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, having been appointed in 2024.

Why are Labour seemingly so afraid to challenge the anti-migrant narrative of Reform UK, and indeed appear to be positively enabling it?

This directly speaks to the crucial issue of standards and the responsibility all politicians share to maintain honest and respectful debate.

I am deeply concerned that the migration debate has become toxic, in part because the left has underestimated how easily racism and far-right extremism can infiltrate mainstream political discourse. This complacency has led to a misguided approach, one that tolerates far-right rhetoric and, at times, repeats it while ignoring the serious risks involved. In some cases, when the repercussions of doing this become clear, some politicians have retreated from their harmful statements. However, by then the fear and division have already taken root in our communities.

We must confront the far-right’s anti-migrant narrative decisively and hold ourselves to a higher standard of political discourse – one grounded in truth, respect, and inclusivity. Giving ground to far-right discourse on migration will only strengthen the far-right and weaken our message to communities.

Lisa Burton

When can we expect to see the details and implementation of the youth mobility scheme between the UK and the European Union?

As I’m not a government minister, I don’t have the specifics of the negotiations.

However, based on several indications from the Chancellor and the Minister for Europe, it’s clear the Government is committed to advancing the scheme. This includes promising signs of working towards association to the brilliant Erasmus+ programme.

After multiple discussions with Ministers, I’m optimistic they aim to make substantial progress ahead of the next UK-EU Summit in May.

 Matt Burton

What would you say to pro Europeans who feel that Labour is not going far or fast enough with resetting the UK’s relationship with the European Union?

I represent Battersea – a constituency that voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union and a place where thousands of Europeans live – and I fully share the frustration many feel about the ongoing challenges as result of Brexit. This includes issues around the cost of living, reduced cultural exchange, and the pressure on small businesses that my constituents experience every day.

Throughout my time as an MP, I have consistently championed a pro-European vision. Across Battersea, it’s clear just how much a closer, more constructive relationship with the EU could improve people’s lives.

That said, it’s important to remember the state of our relationship with the EU before this Government took office. Less than eighteen months ago, conversations were simply not being had and there was no sign of life between the UK and EU. Since then, we’ve seen real progress: this Government has reopened dialogue, laid the groundwork for deeper cooperation on a range of issues, and, crucially, demonstrated a genuine willingness to work with our closest neighbours to confront the world’s most pressing challenges.

I am hopeful that from this standpoint, further change will flow.

Susan Scarrott

Have lessons been learned from the Brexit referendum campaign – where there were few positive messages regarding our relationship with the EU – rather than simply reacting to the negatives that Reform is still perpetuating?

We only need to look at the outcomes of last May’s UK-EU Summit to see change here. The tone of our relationship has shifted, and we are now hearing the right messages about the value of working together.

The Government is putting forward the argument that we need our neighbours to build a safer, more stable and peaceful world. We are also pressing the value of cultural exchange for young people’s opportunities and emphasising the objective truth – that it is better for our economy and for trade to work with the EU rather than against it.

There is a renewed confidence to Government communication on EU affairs, which is very welcome given the dire state of the conversation less than six years ago.

Anon

As a former Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, what positive changes for women have you witnessed over recent years and what more needs to be done to ensure equality?

Gender-based violence remains one of the most serious challenges we face in achieving women’s safety and equality. For many in Battersea, this issue struck painfully close to home with the horrific murder of Sarah Everard in 2023.

Since then, however, we have begun to see meaningful progress. The introduction of Raneem’s Law in February marked an important step forward, bringing domestic abuse specialists into 999 control rooms for the first time. A new criminal offence for spiking will soon be created under the forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill, showing the Government is serious in its commitment to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade.

I was also buoyed by the appointment of Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson as the new Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Having had the privilege of working with her and the Women’s Budget Group during my time as Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, I know she brings a wealth of expertise, integrity, and compassion to the role – qualities that will be essential in defending and advancing women’s rights and equality.

Bremain’s Annual General Meeting will take place online on Saturday 22 November. You can register here to attend.

Members, whether attending or not, are invited to put questions to the Bremain Council. We will also feature the best questions/answers in next month’s newsletter.

If you wish to submit a question for consideration, please email us no later than Wednesday 12 November. Please indicate in your email if you would prefer your question to include your name, or if you prefer it to be discussed and published anonymously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruth Woodhouse : What is your opinion of the recently-agreed “one-in-one-out” migrant deal between the UK and France?

Cooperation with France – and the rest of Europe – is absolutely necessary in order to resolve the small boats issue and manage the arrival of refugees in the UK safely and humanely, so it is a necessary first step that Starmer has entered into serious negotiation with Macron. The positive side of this is the acceptance on the UK side that not only are there refugees in France with ties to the UK who need to make their way here, but also that they need a safe and regulated way to make that journey, which they have lacked until now. That is the bare minimum that needs to be accepted and used as a basis for developing a safe route for asylum seekers.

However, unfortunately that’s where the good news stops. I fear that, in their haste to produce something that looks tough for the British news cycle this summer, they have jumped the gun on announcing this inadequate deal. The ‘one-in-one-out’ part is an immediate red flag – anybody coming safely to the UK therefore depends on another person risking their life and being detained and deported, which makes the whole thing a circus. If it ever were to fully work, then it would immediately stop working again, because if no one were crossing the Channel anymore, there would be no more safe routes available either, leaving us back where we started. The safe route to the UK must be put in place on the basis of need, not a reciprocal trade in human beings. The Dublin Regulation, when we were a part of it, suffered from problems too, which meant that the numbers of people sent back and forth essentially always stayed quite low – administering these schemes in line with the law is difficult and time consuming, and the numbers we’re talking about for this ‘pilot’ are simply not going to touch the sides of the issue.

How significant has Brexit been in the increase in “small boats”?

Brexit is both the cause of the small boats’ arrival, and also not! Before we left the EU, people entered the UK irregularly from France in significant numbers, provoking a great deal of political opposition. However, since Brexit, the preferred route for making that journey has changed to small boats, and the numbers have somewhat increased.

Pre-Brexit we were part of the EU-wide Dublin Regulation which meant that anyone apprehended making an irregular crossing from France could be returned there from the UK and anyone with family ties to the UK in other parts of Europe could apply to rejoin them here through safe means. The system was clunky at best, operating slowly and depending on the good will and cooperation of many different border force and asylum agencies across different countries. Essentially, only a couple of thousands of people per year at most were ever sent back and forth in and out of the UK through the Dublin mechanism. Mostly, people who arrived here had their claims processed here, despite irregular arrivals, similarly to now.

However, with Brexit, there was no longer any need to conceal the crossing itself from UK authorities – being “caught in the act” of entering from France no longer meant you would be subject to return to France because with Brexit we left the Dublin convention. This meant asylum seekers and smugglers abandoned the use of lorries and trucks and adopted a much more visible way of travelling to the UK – the small boats. Ironically, although still very dangerous, this is actually a somewhat safer way of making the crossing than travelling in trucks and lorries, because you are guaranteed to come to the attention of the authorities quickly and likely to be rescued – less likely to suffocate in the back of a lorry.

The fact that the crossings are now so much more visible has been a disaster from the political perspective, because asylum seekers in a boat create a visceral image, whereas asylum seekers milling around Calais lorry ports do not in the same way.

In addition, now that we are no longer a part of the Dublin system, we have become a destination of last resort for asylum seekers if they have their claim refused in another European country. If you are refused asylum in one Dublin Regulation country, you cannot apply in any other. But you still can in the UK, so there are families seeking to reach us now because they have exhausted their application rights in the rest of Europe and know that we will at least have to assess their claim individually again. In this way, Brexit has increased the numbers of asylum seekers in the UK somewhat, which is clear in the fact that numbers here are still very high, while they have been dropping in the rest of Europe over the last few years.

Rejoining the EU would be good for a lot of reasons, but it would not make asylum seekers in the UK disappear, and would not simply allow us to immediately remove everybody back to the first EU country of entry – the system is more complex and poorly managed than that. And the EU very much has its own significant failures in how it manages the arrival of refugees. We would need to take the lead in changing the European approach to one of solidarity, compassion and responsibility-sharing, whether from within or without.

Steve Wilson : Which countries – if any – have an immigration policy that you respect and would recommend as a model for the UK?

Tragically few. Although looking across other systems, there are areas where some countries do things better, and other areas where they perhaps do things worse.

Spain has a very poor approach to managing the border and the accommodation of child asylum seekers, but they have a very positive overall outlook towards immigration and work. Asylum seekers in Spain are given Spanish language and integration classes and matched with training opportunities in areas of the economy that are struggling to recruit workers. Spain has significantly increased immigration into work in the last several years and is reaping the economic benefits – its economy growing much faster than any other European country including the UK. Even in far more immigration-sceptical Italy, visa pathways for migrant workers are being expanded significantly to meet the demands of their ageing population.

The Spanish government also has a clear and morally robust rhetoric around immigration, explaining how Europe’s ageing populations cannot continue to support themselves without immigration and refusing to bow to pressures of racist rhetoric, as so many other European leaders have.

Spain has also pursued a number of regularisation programmes to bring undocumented migrant workers into the formal economy and give them the paperwork to allow them to stay legally and contribute to the country. This has been a huge success.

Both Spain and Portugal also have citizenship systems that recognise the ties created by their colonial pasts – immigrants from ex-colonies have faster pathways to settlement and citizenship in recognition of their cultural ties to the country.

France still has a system that recognises those born on French soil who have never lived anywhere but France as automatically eligible for French citizenship. We in the UK abandoned that sensible approach for racist reasons in the 1980s.

While Germany is not an example at the current time, the efforts they made to welcome large numbers of Syrian refugees a decade ago are having positive impacts today, with a significant majority of them in work and well-integrated, especially in areas where support for integration and language learning was provided, bringing in a positive contribution to the German economy according to latest economic reports.

These are all ideas the UK could benefit from considering.

Valerie Chaplin : How can the Government speed up the asylum process?

Instead of fast-tracking refusals – which will inevitably clog up the appeals process and risks sending people from largely safe places where they may have been individually targeted back to situations of danger, we should fast-track acceptance of asylum claims from people from manifestly unsafe countries like Syria, Sudan and Afghanistan. Let these people start rebuilding their lives quickly, after some light touch formal checks rather than a two-year process of limbo.

David Eldridge : Despite evidence to the contrary, the right wing media still repeat the same tired lies about refugees and immigration. How do we get the truth out there and stop the constant repetition of lies and misinformation?

They are extremely well funded, with money coming into the likes of GBNews and Reform UK from the world’s richest men. On the other ‘side’ we have volunteers, charitable foundations, and the dust where progressive political voices ought to be. We should take heart that despite this incredible discrepancy in resources, the British public is still decent in its politics around immigration – our side is punching above its weight.

But at a time like this, where we face the very serious threat of a descent into extremism, with the abandoning of all the post-war international treaties that protect our human rights, we all have a responsibility to do everything we can.

Every time and every way that we have to raise our voices we must do so, especially those of us who are protected from much of the immediate danger by our white skin and British passports. A lie can be repeated enough times that it starts to sound true, it is our job to repeat the truth even more times than that.

Helen Johnston : Do you have confidence in any of the major political parties to change the debate on migration and freedom of movement?

I have lost faith in Labour under this leadership. The Greens, LibDems, Plaid Cymru, SNP, and potentially the new left party being cobbled together by Corbyn and Sultana are all places where progressive politics on migration are still being heard. We must not give an inch in those spaces and continue to show politicians the example of what a brave, principled position that can push the Overton Window back away from the far-right looks like.

Every one of those parties is still lacking the bravery to take a stand, cut through the noise and seize control of the narrative on immigration, although if Zack Polanski wins the Green leadership I believe we’ll have a better shot than before with that.

Anonymous : When faced with so much hate, delusion and misinformation in debates on immigration, how do you manage to stay so calm and in control?

I seethe on the inside, even during interviews where I appear pretty calm. My friends, colleagues, and family are there for me to express my emotions and give me support in particularly difficult times. But it’s important for me to remember that I am speaking on behalf of so many people – not only the migrants who are subjected to such an onslaught of lies but also the good people all over this country who support a humane and realistic approach to managing immigration. I am not the one under attack, I am one of the people standing shoulder to shoulder to protect those who are, and that gives me strength.

I have been doing interviews on this topic for a long time, it is difficult to shock me, and very difficult indeed to come up with an argument on immigration that I have never thought about before. I am very much convinced that the side of humanity is the right one, and that we can and will create a system of immigration that respects people’s rights and works well for the UK. It is a fantasy to believe we can stop people from moving, no matter how awful we try to be – people have always and will always move. Our only choice is how to manage it, and so I’m unflustered by politicians and commentators who are selling fairy tales about making it stop. The important thing is to keep trying to get our message across.

Barbara Leonard : What do you suggest is the best way (and place) for us to challenge the strong wave of ‘othering’ that drives sales of papers like the Mail and clicks on social media? 

This will be different for everyone, but there are ways each and every single one of us can and must try to make a difference. Writing to your MP is something we should all get used to doing. If you are part of a church, mosque, synagogue or other, a community group, or sports team, or a school or university community, there are resources available to help you start a conversation about the political times we live in and what can be done to help.

In almost every town in the UK there are befriending and welcome groups of volunteers who are helping to make newcomers feel safe and at home. These networks and communities and the love and solidarity we show one another through them are something that cannot be taken away by right wing rhetoric or even the seizing of power by the right in politics.

We are stronger and more numerous than the forces that seek to divide us and each one of us taking small actions in our own ways is everything we can and must do.

When it comes to taking action, don’t ever think even just a conversation with a family member, or a tiny donation, or whatever it may be, is too small. The only thing that is unacceptable in these days is to do nothing at all. Every time we do the small things we can do in our families, friendship groups, communities or on the national stage if we have it, we are fighting for the world that is more equal that is coming and shaping the future that we are going to all live in.

Those of us who feel able must also make our voice heard in protest. I have been participating in a number of protests over the last months but I am hoping that we will have a really big opportunity to make the voice of decency heard against all the far-right politics that are represented by Donald Trump: I hope everyone reading this will join the demonstration against his state visit, gathering at 2pm at Portland Place in London on Wednesday 17th September!