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.

Valerie Chaplin : Will Trump last out his term or will the US see sense and oust him before he does any more damage?

I’m not sure if he will last, but to me the most likely reason for his exit is ill-health (including death). I can’t see the Republicans ousting him. If the Democrats win both the House and the Senate in the midterms, then they might be able to, if they can get enough Republicans to vote with them in the Senate, but I still think it is very unlikely.

David Eldridge : Will Trump’s unpopularity across most of Europe harm the poll ratings of far-right parties either modelling themselves on or openly courting his support (Reform, AfD, Vox, RN etc)?

Yes and no. I think parties that explicitly tie themselves too closely to Trump might be harmed by association and I can’t see them angling for his endorsement for that reason (especially after the US open endorsement for Orban in Hungary ended badly for Orban). That said, I think far-right parties can adopt many of Trump’s strategies and that this can work for them (e.g. leaning into the culture war, painting opponents as out-of-touch elites, stoking hatred for immigrants) and they can do this without even mentioning Trump or the US. Additionally, they can benefit from huge donations of Trump-aligned billionaires/right-wing foundations, again without necessarily tying themselves to Trump. 

Susan Scarrott : What do you consider were the greatest losses to your scientific field after leaving the EU and what would be the benefits of rejoining?

The biggest losses were scientists and science funding. On the former, applications for undergraduate and postgraduate study from the EU have dropped off a cliff (much more expensive for them and they need expensive visas). Even more worrying, while previously we used to get many applications for academic jobs (e.g. postdoctoral researcher or tenured positions) from brilliant EU scientists, these have disappeared. I can’t remember the last time an EU citizen applied for a postdoc position I was on the interview panel for. I think this is a tragic loss. We also lost access to exchange programmes with the EU and access to some European funding schemes (e.g. Horizon). Some of these are now restored, which is very welcome, but it has still been several years of lost opportunities.

Steven Wilson : Have Trump’s actions caused permanent damage to US global collaborations and standing, or will international relations return to ‘normal’ once he is removed from power?

Permanent is a long time – after all the UK is no longer enemies with France, Spain or Germany against whom we fought many wars. But as long as a MAGA version of the Republicans is in power, international relations and the US global influence are both severely weakened. If and when Democrats return to power, it will take a long time to build back collaboration to where it was, because the trust is gone that agreements will outlive an administration. I also suspect that this might be the start of the US decline as the pre-eminent global superpower (especially as China continues to rise), so perhaps in that sense the damage is permanent.

Lisa Burton : Why do you think evidence-based policy so often struggles to compete with political narratives or misinformation?

Excellent question! I think it’s a number of things. Evidence-based policy tends to be slower and to call for slower, more careful actions – which is out of step with what people want (quick change). Evidence-based policy also tends to involve at least some trade-offs, and people prefer to hear that things can be made better with little cost or effort on their part (I mean who doesn’t?). The growth of AI has made coming up with superficially convincing arguments (and pseudo-science) to support populists’ policies very easy, and social media has provided the means to amplify it. 

Evidence-based policy also requires changing your mind or direction if the evidence changes or better ideas emerge, and politicians are punished for this and so are social media influencers. This creates an incentive structure that rewards doubling down and extreme positions, which counteract evidence-based policy. I personally experienced this during COVID, when my followers would ‘reward’ me for any negative news about Covid or government policy but ‘punish’ (or ignore) when I posted good news or in support of a government policy. It can be very tempting to go towards the ‘reward’ and you have to consciously stop yourself.

Anon : With close to 3000 actions on your Trump Action Tracker, are there any particular misdeeds that stand out for you?

I think all of it is pretty bad – the combined attacks on rule of law, the media, and science. But what I personally find most disturbing is the utterly blatant white supremacist propaganda being pumped out on X by the Dept of Homeland Security and the in-your-face racism of Trump against non-white immigrants, especially (at the moment) Venezuelans and Somalis. When combined with all the actions that speak to a fundamental belief that whoever has the biggest army should do what they like, when they like, to whom they like, it feels like a return to very dark times.

Lisa Burton : You have always been very outspoken on Brexit. Has it had any direct or personal effect on your life or profession?

At first, Brexit didn’t affect me directly: it was more an ideological frustration. It never made sense to me to limit our ability to live, work, and study on the continent we’re part of, or to isolate ourselves from our nearest neighbours.

But as I became more vocal online, some brands chose not to work with us. Implausibleblog used to be just lifestyle fun: food, fashion, travel and tech. The addition of news has changed our dynamic and increased our reach such that we get in a day what we used to get in a month, in terms of impressions and engagement. The Highlights tab on Twitter helps us show some of our non-news content. 

That was initially disappointing and even a little disheartening. I understand brands want to stay politically neutral, but staying silent is exactly what helped deliver Brexit in the first place. So, I made a personal vow: as long as I have the platform, I’ll continue expressing my views, because without voices like these, we risk ending up in an even worse situation.

Interestingly, some staff at the very brands that cut ties would privately tell me they appreciated my honesty, liking and engaging with my political content in private. I also see the same frustration in many people, but they feel unable to express it publicly. Having made the decision to speak out, I find myself considerably more at peace.

It feels strange to live in a time where speaking sincerely is more of a luxury than a right freely exercised by many. We can communicate instantly across the globe, yet doing so effectively and honestly remains difficult. Navigating brand neutrality in a corporate-driven world is a challenge, but thankfully some, like Lush, take a more direct approach. It gives hope that, one day, others may follow suit. How bad does it have to get before people are willing to speak out?

On a lighter note, I have many friends across Western Europe, and I’m grateful that, at least for now, Brexit hasn’t curtailed my ability to travel and visit them.

Valerie Chaplin : What do you think re the current state of the Government and do you think the UK will rejoin the EU?

The Government seems lost and confused, desperate to deliver growth while fully aware that Brexit is holding the UK back yet pressing ahead regardless. After the chaos and ideological excess of Johnson, Farage, and others, we’ve entered a new phase where even pro-European voices feel powerless to pull the UK closer to the EU.

Even small, sensible measures, like regulatory alignment, provoke outrage from Brexit hardliners. Labour risks abuse and accusations of ‘betrayal’ no matter what it does, so if it’s going to act, it might as well commit fully rather than tiptoe around it.

I don’t see Keir Starmer steering the UK back into the EU anytime soon. His reluctance to challenge populist misinformation or confront the far right reinforces the perception that Labour lacks the courage to lead on this issue. While there are voices within the party advocating closer ties with Europe, they remain marginal, on the fringes rather than shaping meaningful policy.

It was refreshing to hear Mayor of London Sadiq Khan recently call for joining a Customs Union and the EU Single Market before the end of this parliament, framing the next election as a de facto vote on EU re-entry. Given Labour’s 15 major u-turns since taking office, this may be their only path to a second term. Yet Starmer’s leadership has often been a letdown, so one can only hope Labour appoints someone stronger to guide the nation into the election.

Steven Wilson : Spain has been at the forefront of criticism of Israel & the US. Do you expect others, including the EU itself, to voice similar opposition?

Pedro Sánchez has shown that it’s possible for a liberal democracy to uphold its values without being subjugated to another nation’s folly, especially when military action violates international law.

We see occasional sparks of dissent across Europe, but not enough momentum. Europe and the US share much culturally and democratically, it’s like we’re cousins. While there are differences, from climate policy to food standards, common ground remains. Yet I don’t see enough European voices speaking up right now. Until we apply fairness equally and have the courage to call out our allies when they act wrongly, little will change.

A stark illustration of this is the recent interview between The Economist editor-in-chief Zanny Beddoes and Tucker Carlson. I used to be a fan of the publication, critical of Carlson. Today, it feels reversed, Carlson spoke with more moral clarity than Beddoes. It’s a new, upside-down norm we must navigate. What’s missing is a collective European political response to these crises. We saw one approach to Russia’s attack on Ukraine and a very different one to Israel’s strikes on Gaza. Now, as war with Iran grows unpopular across Europe, meaningful criticism is still lacking.

I don’t want fewer ties between the UK, EU, and US. I want better standards, objectives, and a collective approach to peace and stability. Diplomacy shouldn’t disguise rightful criticism; otherwise, the public is left frustrated with weak, vague statements from politicians.

Anon : Should the King’s state visit to the US be cancelled?

In my view, yes. It’s hard to see how he could attend in good conscience while the US is flouting international norms, and President Trump is actively trolling our Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. Even if I’m no longer a fan, he’s still the UK’s PM.

How can we persuade the Government that mimicking far-right immigration policies is doing more harm than good, not least to themselves?

Labour has entered office with good ideas, but poor planning and delivery have forced repeated U-turns. Pension means-testing was set too low, the two-child benefit cap flip-flop exposed contradictions, and MPs were suspended for supporting policies the Government now celebrates.

Worse, in trying to appeal to the public, Labour has abandoned its values on immigration. Instead of promoting the benefits immigrants bring, as Canada’s Mark Carney has done gracefully, Labour is echoing hardline, far-right talking points. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s immigration stance, now backed by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, is a glaring sign of how wrong the approach has gone.

This is a tone problem from the top. Starmer has chosen the easy path: mimic the Conservatives and Reform UK to appeal to a disenfranchised audience, rather than explain why a fair, progressive immigration policy benefits the country. In doing so, he alienates the left and centre, and fails to unify the wider public.

After 14 years of Conservative chaos, we deserved stability, integrity, and decency. Instead, Starmer has repeatedly abandoned those principles for short-term political gain. Unless Labour finds a new direction, I don’t see the party recovering under his leadership.

Sue Scarrott : With so many pressing matters needing Government attention, such as Brexit, cost-of-living, privatised water scandals, state of the NHS/Care sector, FPTP voting system etc, what should be the Government’s main priorities?

Nobody expected Labour to fix 14 years of austerity and division overnight, real repair will take time. In a crisis, good leadership first rallies people, sets a bold tone and direction, then methodically tackles issues.

Labour has fallen short here: messaging has been weak and inconsistent, and “growing the economy while making Brexit work” feels contradictory and uninspiring. Gaslighting the nation that post Brexit trade deals make up for the loss in GDP from being in the EU really is insulting.

Labour’s policies often seem driven by fear rather than ambition. Labour scaled back its strong green industrial revolution over bond-market fears, yet clear communication of its benefits (jobs, cheaper energy, security) might have won support for the investment.

The top priority must be genuine vision and ambition: end defensive spin, reject narrow interests, and lead with strong principles. Why, for example, no full ban on offshore donations? Because Labour themselves have received millions in donations from off-shore firms. Labour can’t fix the broken system if they themselves are exploiting it.

Principles first, then sharper, positive messaging. Traditional media will criticise anyway, but bolder choices would gain huge backing from online and new media. I’d love something positive to tweet about, not immigration policies so awful they’re endorsed by Kemi Badenoch.

20 months after the landslide, it’s odd to say, but Labour’s priority needs to be a clearer vision and better execution. The 15 major U-turns reflect poor delivery, not necessarily bad ideas. If the winter fuel allowance cap was set higher, it could very well have been a Labour success story right now. 

People want to recapture that electric election-night energy, the surge of hope, the bold momentum to rebuild Britain after years of stagnation. Instead, the Government under Starmer and Reeves has settled into a cautious, low-momentum style that’s increasingly reminiscent of Harry Enfield’s Kevin the Teenager: sulky, defensive, moaning “it’s so unfair!” at every challenge, lacking the drive and spark that once inspired voters.

Matt Burton : You have over 120,000 followers on X. Have you seen your engagement drop or rise since Elon Musk took over?

I began posting political content before Musk’s takeover, and I haven’t noticed any major change in overall reach: the more followers I gain, the greater the potential visibility. What I have observed, however, is that follower count isn’t as crucial as posting frequency. That said, having more people see a post initially does help amplify its reach.

One thing that can be disheartening is seeing a post receive 10,000 likes while another, equally valid post, gets only 50. Often, reach isn’t determined by content quality, which can be frustrating, especially for videos that take far more time and effort. But this is a common experience across social media, not just X.

Recently, I’ve noticed a platform-driven change. According to Grok, it was introduced in January 2026, but I only really noticed it in March. Now, if I like posts about flowers, I start seeing more flower content; if I like posts about food, I see more food. It’s reminiscent of X’s early days when it was old-school Twitter, and it’s refreshing to see how quickly the algorithm can respond to what you actually want to see, almost in real time.

What all of this really shows is that it’s not the content itself but the platform that determines reach, scale, and visibility. We’ve shifted from a culture of sharing and expressing views freely to one where some content is amplified, some is limited, and some lands somewhere in between. As a result, content is often shaped to fit perceived algorithmic preferences rather than simply reflecting what you want to say. And it doesn’t help that most social platforms operate the same way. They are designed to capture attention and spark engagement, which is a curious way of conditioning human interaction.

David Eldridge : Can Starmer survive?

At a time when the UK is being drawn into conflict with Iran, even as Labour insists it is not engaging in an offensive role, Keir Starmer appears far more level-headed than any of the Conservatives. Yet it is frustrating to hear the repeated line of “defensive, not offensive,” when UK bases are being used to arm bombers, and we know strikes are occurring in Iran. What began as a commendable stance of standing up to Trump and avoiding entanglement now seems undermined, with the country being pulled in from the sidelines.

On the question of Starmer’s survival as Labour leader, the initial optimism has given way to concern. His response to the Farage riots was promising, but subsequent actions suggest a decline: from the “island of strangers” remarks, to publicly calling for the resignation of the former West Midlands chief constable over a misjudgement, despite having made his own far greater error by ignoring advice and appointing Peter Mandelson anyway.

Starmer, Yvette Cooper, and Shabana Mahmood were all impressive in opposition. But in office, they have changed. Mahmood has taken a hardline stance on immigration and asylum, aligned with Kemi Badenoch’s approach. Cooper endorsed proscribing a group later deemed lawful by the UK High Court. And Starmer jumped on the antisemitism bandwagon over the Maccabi fan ban, unable to distinguish between public safety and antisemitism, despite the Green Party leader, who is Jewish, stating it was not antisemitic.

Can Starmer survive? Perhaps. Many Labour voters demonstrate the same loyalty to a leader that Conservatives have long exhibited. In an ideal world, leaders would be held to the same scrutiny as opposition figures. But British politics is increasingly driven by loyalty, regardless of actions or errors. That’s why Boris Johnson survived for so long, and why Starmer might as well. 20 months after the landslide, it’s odd to say, but Labour’s priority needs to be a clearer vision and better execution. The 15 major U-turns reflect poor delivery, not necessarily bad ideas. If the winter fuel allowance cap was set higher, it could very well have been a Labour success story right now. 

People want to recapture that electric election-night energy, the surge of hope, the bold momentum to rebuild Britain after years of stagnation. Instead, the Government under Starmer and Reeves has settled into a cautious, low-momentum style that’s increasingly reminiscent of Harry Enfield’s Kevin the Teenager: sulky, defensive, moaning “it’s so unfair!” at every challenge, lacking the drive and spark that once inspired voters.

 Ruth Woodhouse : You recently referred to the “butterfly effect” and “small acts of resistance” with regard to addressing current ills. In practical terms, how do we employ this approach to fight the ever-rising tide of xenophobia?

You can never know when a small act of resistance makes a substantial difference. My father in 1939 had to get across two borders with no papers. A man with a milk cart and horse, with no reason to help a young stranger, just a small act of grace, decided to risk letting him hide in his cart and got him across one of them. At another he traded a blind eye from a border guard for his watch. Against all odds, he managed to get onto one of the last Kindertransport as a steward, even though officially the kids were unaccompanied. He described his escape to England as “a series of small miracles.” There is no one right or wrong way to unknowingly perform a small miracle. I think perhaps the article you are referring to was about the almost Herculean effort it sometimes takes to not embarrass or humiliate someone with opposing views to you in social media, which tends to amplify biases to create conflict rather than reduce it. Staying true to principles whilst not engaging ego, when addressing someone who might simply be uninformed rather than a card-carrying arsehole who tests patience, is not a trivial thing to hold to. I feel a small sense of failure, not victory, if I have to resort to blocking someone. The resistance there is not to amplify the bias the platform relies on for stickiness but still to insist that truth matters. You can never know the through effect of one thoughtful act or one thoughtful reply. 

Valerie Chaplin : Do you think the UK should rejoin the EU and stop pandering to Trump?

There is a lot to unpack here. The man in Dublin asked for directions who started his reply by saying “Well I wouldn’t start from here” knew a lot.

I would of course prefer that we’d never left. Rejoining is extremely complex and would require a series of circumstances in all 27 member countries. The EU now holds a substantially smaller percentage of global trade than it did ten years ago. If the UK were to rejoin it would boost that share by three or four percent and bring the EU within striking distance of matching the US for trade, which is making its own trading position more difficult by Trump’s tariffs and general boorishness on the world stage. There are many compelling arguments for the UK to return to the fold and none from the UK’s perspective for not doing it. 

Historically, not pandering to US Presidents as a UK PM would have been close to unthinkable. Churchill certainly had to, and Blair destroyed his own reputation when siding with Bush Jnr over the so-called “old Europe” that elected not to illegally invade Iraq. It’s not hard to imagine the Daily Mail headline: “Blair destroys the special relationship and our nuclear umbrella.” Starmer is very short on good options too, but yes, in my view, a principled refusal to pander to what looks very much like 21st Century fascism seems necessary. However, he has to consider how best to serve the national interest as he sees fit. I think it’s become very difficult to say that “pandering” is viable any longer. A closer look at Canada’s PM, Carney’s workaround AND realigning with the EU as much as possible would seem existential for both Starmer and the UK. 

Steve Wilson : Do you believe Reform have a realistic chance of forming the next government?

Reform is a political party with all its roots in weaponising xenophobia, racism and fear of immigration. They are currently trying to pretend that, rather than the extreme far-right wrecking ball Farage and Faragism has always been, they represent the new centre-right. They don’t, but it’s a public relations adjustment that is working well for them. Currently polling close to 30% across the country, they are certainly a serious political threat to liberal democracy. They would replicate much of what the MAGA movement has done in Minneapolis. 

At present, with our first-past-the-post electoral system, they would be unlikely to procure enough seats to win outright – but they could conceivably still, with alliances, form a government. It is more likely that the Liberal Democrats would hold their noses and ally with Labour to prevent them, but Hitler seized power, in large measure, through the ballot box and then absolute power thereafter. To me, Farage is a substantial risk and all legal efforts should be taken to keep him away from the levers of power while there is still sand in the hourglass. 

Juliet Lodge : What can we and musicians do together to advance understanding of Europe?

Musicians in the main have always been good at uniting diverse groups of people. Audiences in the main are little different country to country… some understand lyrics better than others but the transformative experience of “the church of Bruce”, for example, with Bruce Springsteen is well known. Peter Gabriel with Womad was famous for bringing global musicians onto one stage. 

I once realised when making an album in the Netherlands that we unintentionally had about eight different nationalities working together in the same room: that’s just how music innately is… it builds bridges, not walls. Brexit has committed a terrible act of cultural vandalism to this effect and, yes, cross-cultural resistance to being defined and contained by mere borders has always been foundational to music and its alchemical soft power. To restore freedom of movement and friction-free trade in Europe would be an absolute good. 

Anon : Do Labour stand any chance of turning things around and winning the next election, with or without Starmer?

Labour have inherited a chess board where the odds of winning a second term are difficult but not impossible. Sometimes, even with a great player, a game is objectively lost because only bad moves are left. It’s hard to say if that’s the case yet — but they do need to stop making any more blunders. No Government can win an election polling at 20%. They will ultimately be judged on their record and on living standards of the many. A week is a long time in politics. It’s their power to lose. 

Lisa Burton : If you could remove one barrier Brexit created for musicians tomorrow, what would it be?

One measure wouldn’t be enough. We need freedom of movement first and foremost but friction-free trade too. The loss of our European passports was probably the biggest gut punch for professional musicians in the UK – but touring is goods and services – people, equipment and merch have to freely travel too. A tour of 9 or 10 countries in Europe used to be no harder than a tour of 10 cities in Britain. Now it’s almost unimaginably complex – and beyond the means of small and medium-sized performers. Tinkering is welcome, but fundamentally rejoining is the only realistic fix. But political allegiances shift all the time – we’ll have to see what opportunities can be found and take them if presented. 

David Eldridge : Do you think McSweeney’s resignation will allow Starmer to remain in office for longer or will it hasten his departure?

 It’s likely a useful bloodletting. McSweeney fell on his sword (or was pushed onto it) over the Peter Mandelson scandal. That hasn’t fully played out yet. However weak Labour look – the right are fracturing worse. What we need are unifying alliances to keep the far right out of the mainstream where they are currently building strongholds. We live in “interesting times” of instability, when small changes can have powerful effects. We need to have a care that our solitary nudges aren’t misjudged. 

Anon : Pro-Europeans seem split between those wanting to rejoin the EU tomorrow and those who believe it will take a generation at least. What’s your best guess re the likely timeframe of a return to the EU?

I don’t doubt that we shouldn’t have left. I don’t doubt that we need a real public inquiry into Brexit to investigate how dark money, foreign malign influence, and Cambridge Analytica-style tactics of targeting persuadables tipped the scales on the referendum vote of 2016 before we can honestly address the size and scale of the hole under the waterline. Bilge pumps aren’t the answer. I think the timescale is very hard to know. 

In 1988 the Soviet Union was a fact as solid as the USA. By 1989 it was over, in the desire of Germany to reunify and tear down the wall. We are all Europeans… some are just taking a little longer to finally realise and recognise it. It feels like an immensity to imagine but, when a dam begins to leak, pretty soon the innate pressure opens the river up to its natural state again. 

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.