Sarah Calvert : How has the EM changed its messaging strategy over the year, and how do you think it will evolve in the future?

Our core message has, since Brexit, been consistent: the UK’s place is in the EU. But emphasis has evolved. Under Conservative governments we focused on the disaster of Brexit and – pending reversing it – demanding achievable things. For example, we opposed the disastrous original draft of the Retained EU Law Bill and advocated for the UK to associate to the Horizon Europe programme.

Under Keir Starmer, we used every available hook to push for ditching the (in)famous ‘red lines’ before the next election – we will never know whether Starmer would have done that if he had remained in power…but sticking rigidly to them contributed to his downfall.

Andy Burnham has made clear applying to join the EU is an option for the next parliament. So we have pivoted to focus on arguing positively for that choice, dovetailing with our comprehensive rebrand.

We now have to convince voters that their own and the UK’s future will be better inside the EU and that there is a viable path to that. We should be ambitious, realistic and honest about the trade-offs and challenges. That is what our Heart of Europe 2036 target is about.

Michael Soffe : Do you think the UK system is “ready” or even “able” to combat “disinformation” leading up to the next General Election?
There is no perfect solution. Neither should we despair. That is what Russia and other perpetrators of Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) want! 

Evidence suggests multiple attempts to interfere in democratic elections. However, UK and other intelligence services say there is little evidence of those attempts succeeding. A massive interference operation recently failed to bring about the election result Russia wanted in neighbouring Moldova. Others can learn from how Moldova defended its democracy..

One of the keys is effectively regulating tech platforms – the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act and linked regulations share similar virtues and flaws. The EU has been more robust on using competition law to limit tech power. The jury is out on whether its ‘Democracy Shield’ will be effective. Member states have resisted attempts to give the EU wide powers in this field.

Another key is educating the public – the EU and the UK need to do more on this.

A third key is responding based on science. That sometimes means using rebuttals and ‘mythbusters’, notably where ‘disinformation’ is ‘validated’ by mainstream media. In other circumstances, those tactics help spread falsehoods rather than combat them. A strategy that is always right is positive and effective messaging on the issues that bad actors misrepresent.

Mike Cashman : We have a clear message from Terry Reintke about the EU’s readiness to see the UK rejoin. In Mark’s view, from the EU side, what factors would accelerate the UK’s return to the EU, and what would slow it down?

I’ll pick three factors for each scenario:

Accelerate

1/ A positive approach from the UK government, accepting the conditions Michel Barnier recently referred to and ‘selling’ membership to UK voters;

2/ A clear, large, resilient and stable majority in the UK wanting to join;

3/ A dramatic turn in world affairs, such as a Russian incursion into the Baltics, or Trump launching further foreign adventures with catastrophic economic effects (we should not wish for 3/ !)

Slow down

A/ The ‘Farage factor’: fear that a future Reform or Conservative government would reverse the process;

B/ A far-right government in France or (less likely) Germany. A far-right government might block UK accession. It could also cause a crisis that would leave the EU no ‘bandwidth’ for negotiating with the UK. And it could turn UK voters against joining;

C/ Political complications in the EU or the UK. For example, an internal EU conflict over budgetary or rule of law issues. Or an inconclusive UK election result, long negotiations over forming a government or splits in the cabinet.

Finally, the European Parliament has limited power to affect accession issues. The key actors are the Commission and the member states. Any single one can block the process at any stage.

Ruth Woodhouse : In the current climate of hate, hostility and radical anti-migrant rhetoric, what gives you hope?

I think the ever-wider recognition in the UK that leaving the EU was a mistake, the willingness of the Burnham government to reopen the issue and to instigate a ‘national conversation’ and the broad welcome from the EU side are all reasons for hope. Along with what I hope is only the beginning of Farage’s and Reform’s well-deserved slide into disrepute and irrelevance.

David Eldridge : Having seen the European Commission and the European Parliament from the inside, what reforms would you like to see in the EU institutions?

During my 26 years as an EU official, I saw a lot of reform in the administration, most of it for the better. But it is rarely quick. The EU has no alternative but to take decisions by consensus, which takes time. 

I think when I first joined the Commission, there was not enough control from the centre – the President’s office and the Secretariat-general. Now there may be too much – individual Commissioners and their staff can feel disempowered. 

Personally, I think there is little point in discussing far-reaching ‘federalist’ reforms, because they will not happen. They would require treaty change and referendums – with uncertain results – in many Member States. Partly but not only, for that reason, several member states are implacably opposed. And it only takes one to block the whole process. 

There might be more mileage (kilometrage?), with more countries set to join the EU, in moving towards what its proposers call a multi-speed Europe, with different levels of integration for different members. Much of that could be done through accession treaties, the ‘enhanced cooperation’ already in EU treaties and through building opt-outs into future EU laws, rather than wholesale treaty change.

Sue Wilson : The pro-EU mood music at the Labour conference seems to have moved. Can we begin to believe that rejoining will be in the Labour and other parties’ manifestos come the next election?

I think there is a good chance of that. The Prime Minister has said so and other pro-European parties cannot afford to trail in Labour’s wake, so are likely to become even more pro-join. But it is not a foregone conclusion – a lot will depend on effective campaigning, by EMUK and others, that helps convince not only voters but also the Westminster ‘bubble’ and key stakeholders, notably the business community.  That is what our Heart of Europe 2036 target is all about.

Steven Wilson : What sort of commitment/action would it take from the UK government for the EU to take us seriously again after all the problems we have caused?

You are right that there is a continuing hangover of distrust. Relations with the UK are also far from the top of the EU’s ‘to do’ list. On the other hand, the UK coming back asking to join would be a significant political win for the EU side.

I do not think the Commission or any member state would block opening  negotiations with the UK. But it is the EU that determines how fast those negotiations proceed. It ‘holds all the cards’ vis-à-vis any applicant country. 

The UK will need to understand that. It will need to demonstrate serious commitment to rapidly (re)aligning UK legislation with EU law and to overcoming domestic political challenges. It will need to refrain from exceptionalist demands (NB – we will NOT in practice need to join the euro and the EU might not even want us to). 

The UK should also make a positive case – though not in the form of arrogant-sounding public proclamations – on how having the UK back will benefit the EU, economically, in the security and defence field, and perhaps in better equipping it to defend democracy and European values.

Lisa Burton : Just how much of a threat to the EU are the AFD in Germany, or Le Pen’s Rassemblement National in France?  Is it overhyped, or could it truly damage how the EU functions? 

I do not think the threat overhyped. 

Le Pen has retreated from Frexit, now French voters have seen Brexit! But her programme is incompatible with EU membership. She promises a referendum to amend the French constitution in ways conflicting with the EU Treaties. She proposes unilaterally to cut France’s EU budget contribution in half – putting France at daggers drawn with the Commission and other member states. Le Pen’s economic programme – like that of her far-left rival Jean-Luc Melenchon – could create a ‘Liz Truss effect’ at the heart of the eurozone. An EU-wide economic crisis could follow.

I cannot see Le Pen following Giorgia Meloni’s conciliatory path. However, I think the damage to the French economy could be so immense that she would in the end have to back down. The EU should survive a Le Pen presidency. 

The AfD is a long way from being a federal governing party, as others will not share power with it. Parts of it are so extremist – one activist recently called for Germany to retake Alsace-Lorraine – that even Le Pen will not work with it. The unlikely event of the AfD gaining power would be existential for the EU.

Originally from the Rhondda Valleys, South Wales, Lisa lives in the Canary Islands. She is the owner/director of a distribution company that operates in the UK and EU. She has been Bremain In Spain’s vice chair since 2020 and is now our newly elected Chair. She is also a member of the national council of European Movement UK and chair of its Conduct Committee.

Ruth Woodhouse : Do you feel that European Movement UK is sufficiently high-profile, and how could it be more so?

As the oldest UK pro-EU group, founded in 1949 with Winston Churchill as a founding member, EMUK wasn’t particularly well known outside political circles. That has changed significantly. Membership has grown from around 5,000 in 2020 to 26,000 today, with 100+ local groups, hundreds of activists, and a vast 300k supporter base. Nevertheless, becoming a household name remains a challenge.

Raising EMUK’s profile has been a priority, and we are getting there. You now regularly see and hear EMUK figures quoted across the media, on Radio 2, LBC and even GB News, with a particularly good relationship with The Independent.

Is that where we want to be? No. Are we on the right track? Yes. But in a media landscape that thrives on division, a calm, sensible voice can sometimes be the hardest to project.

Michael Soffe : How has Brexit affected running a UK-based business from Spain?

Oh yes! For 20+ years my business has distributed home entertainment media as a retailer and wholesaler: vinyl, CDs, Blu-ray/DVDs, Box Sets, movie merch, computer games and so on.

Before Brexit, Amazon ran a pan-European programme that let us distribute stock across Amazon’s EU warehouses based on demand. Around 20% of our sales went through this system, and we have never recovered around 80% of that business.

We were familiar with customs paperwork because we sell business-to-business globally, but Brexit made trading with the EU much more complicated. We now have to provide country-of-origin information for around 400,000 products and navigate much more bureaucracy.  Even though we export daily, things still go wrong sometimes. It takes more time, more staff hours, and more money. It’s harder, slower and more complicated.

Helen Johnston : Do you think the stereotypes promoted in the British press regarding British people living in Spain and other European countries are problematic for our campaigning, and what can we do to counter them?

Yes, 100%. And I also think that British migrants in Spain are more stereotyped than those in France or Belgium, say. The perception that huge swathes of us voted for Brexit is a prime example: as is the argument that we are not a burden, never claim benefits, etc., but somehow migrants to the UK are. It’s all nonsense, of course. It’s hard to change this; people in the UK aren’t really interested in us, and newspapers only want clickbait, but I think one of the best approaches is to highlight individual stories and explain the issues British migrants face, while calling out disinformation when we see it. Emotions work better than facts.

Sue Wilson : What do you think Bremain does best and what do you think we could improve on?

Bremain punches well above its weight and is well known among politicians, activists, and the media, and has strong relationships with organisations such as the Embassy. This stems from the early campaigning, and your high-profile court case, our work with other pro-EU organisations, and features such as Bremainers Ask. Above all, it’s our committed members who continue to contribute to the conversation, campaign, lobby, and keep the goal of rejoining the EU alive.

I do think we could better highlight our unique position as a community of British citizens living in Spain and experiencing the consequences of Brexit first-hand. Sharing more members’ stories and issues would make what we do more personal, relevant and distinctive, while also giving us stronger material for media and social media. Doing this effectively and efficiently with the time available is the problem.

Steve Burnham : Do you think EU membership erodes the sovereignty of member states?

Simply put, no, and this is something the Brexiters never quite understood. No country is truly sovereign, because that would require complete isolation or total autonomy, which is almost impossible in today’s interconnected global world and economic co-dependency.  Every time a nation signs a trade deal and agrees to rules, joins an international organisation, signs up to international laws, joins a coalition like NATO, etc., it gives up some sovereignty, because it abides by rules it did not solely make. Modern-day sovereignty is more about a nation’s ability to maintain domestic control and economic strength while resisting foreign coercion.

Karen Tuck : Do you feel that an MP for us Brits living overseas would be helpful in letting Westminster understand the issues we face; after all, we are currently unrepresented as British Citizens in Europe and the UK?

Yes, 100%. Our MP’s do not understand the issues we face, particularly post-Brexit. You may be aware that Bremain is part of a coalition effort by New Europeans and Unlock Democracy calling for overseas constituencies. We have provided evidence to select committees on this, and I have studied other nations’ systems. What is clear is that the UK government is not very good at franchising its overseas nationals. The French are excellent at doing so and allow several voting methods for their overseas citizens. It’s the system I’d like to see replicated for UK nationals abroad.

Michael Soffe : If you had one piece of advice for those of us who wish to “Rejoin”, what would it be?

Don’t fight old battles and don’t expect any favours. We’re not special – the EU’s first priority will, quite rightly, always be the members inside the club, not others outside (however near or far). Even in the last few weeks, we have seen a supposedly serious UK think-tank come up with a lamentable blueprint that was full of “cakeism” nonsense but did not have any reference to the overriding fact that the EU has its own interests too.

Ruth Woodhouse : To what extent is the Scottish parliament able to engage with the UK parliament regarding Brexit and future relationships with the EU?

Pretty limited. There is the Partnership Assembly, which some folks are very excited to be part of, but in my experience it is ineffectual and disengaged even from a Westminster perspective. We’ll take what opportunities we can to engage and be vocal. I’m hoping to be the Convener of the EU Cross Party Group in Holyrood and welcome all engagement, but the primary talks are government-government and pretty patchy.

Andrew Hesselden : How can we influence the Scottish and UK governments to see the value in mutual Freedom of Movement of People (in Europe) once again?

We don’t need to convince the Scottish government. I hope the fact the former PM talked of “an island of strangers” keeps him awake at night. There might be more of an opportunity going forward but I have my doubts. My suggestion would be that the campaign stresses that which has been lost can be got back and focuses on those advantages we win with EU membership. Sadly, I’m not sure many people articulate it beyond passport queues.

Lisa Burton : Many young people have grown up knowing only post-Brexit Britain. How do we make the case for Europe to a generation that never experienced freedom of movement?

This is one of my biggest worries. You don’t miss what you’ve never had. Same as when tuition fees were introduced in England, it became the new normal within a couple of years so quickly due to student turnover. The Irish European Movement have a lot of good materials on EU advantages which could be repurposed, but there remains a pressing need to make folks aware that there are huge life-changing advantages with EU membership they’re not getting.

Matt Burton : Having served in the European Parliament, Westminster and Scotland, what differences in political culture struck you the most? What could each learn from the others?

My biggest point would be to scrap First-Past-the-Post as soon as possible. If you are an ambitious politician and want to get things done, knowing that you will at some point need the votes of your opponents for things you care about gives an entirely different context to discussion and personal interactions across parties. In Brussels and Holyrood no vote will be won without a majority; as nobody has a majority, it will always need to be a compromise. The idea that FPTP delivers firm government is a fiction; it delivers politicians who think in terms of goodies and baddies.

David Eldridge : In two speeches as a departing MEP you famously asked the EU to “leave a light on” and to not let Scotland down. How are they doing on those fronts?

There’s no doubt in my mind that if, as, and when Scotland votes for independence, we will have allies aplenty who are keen to help us through the process. Equally, I don’t expect the EU to do us any favours or do our job for us. We presented a proposal for the Northern Ireland regulations to cover Scotland also but given this did not have UK support where there was sympathy for us, the EU was not going to step into the constitutional order of a third country. Where NI was different was that it had several international agreements with an EU member state.

Steven Wilson : How do you square the circle between the arguments for being part of a union (EU) and the arguments for leaving a union (UK)?

Because much as they use the same words they are self-evidently not the same thing. My local bowling club has a President – she doesn’t get to live in the White House or illegally bomb Iran. The EU and UK are political constructs with different histories and to my mind the UK has served its time. Scotland can build a new state on ancient foundations but fit for the next decades.

Susan Scarrott : Is there still a strong desire by Scottish voters to rejoin the EU?

Yes, not unanimous obviously but we’re at settled will levels of support, 73% at the last opinion poll and that is without much of a campaign. This would also be far higher but for the Scottish politicians of UK parties not being able to articulate their views because their head office says no.