Chris Dixon offers this summary of Rupert Lowe MP, leader of Restore British Furniture and contender for Nigel Farage’s crown:
Rupert Lowe, the privately educated investment banker who was born into wealth – has never had the fight of the working class in his soul.
Rupert Lowe, the man who worked for Deutschebank – a company that was integral in selling British assets to international interests.
Rupert Lowe, a previous member of the Tory party and a champion of Brexit, which has paralysed our economy, culture, parliament and businesses.
Rupert Lowe, stood for election on 1997, a career politician who pretends not to be.
Rupert Lowe, a man who hired his friend, a rugby coach, on the board of a football club. Rupert Lowe, a man who makes anti-semitic jokes and blames immigrants for all our ills.
Rupert Lowe, a man who mistakes charity rowers for migrants.
Rupert Lowe, a man who has massively undercosted how much mass deportations will cost the economy, and how much damage this will do as he creates massive job gaps no one can or wants to fill.
Rupert Lowe, who wants to strip us of our rights so we have less opportunities but enable more wealth creation for the already wealthy, whilst we become sick and poorer.
Vote Lowe if you want to live in a crueller world which puts the working classes in the place Lowe and the elites want them.
Peace love and joy he is not. See also CONform UK.
It has come to my attention that The European Movement (EM) have continued a sustained smear campaign against me and my work, asking members and volunteers to censor my output, by stating that it was inappropriate and irrelevant, restricting its sharing on social media platforms across the UK and beyond. In elitist media circles this is known as ‘deplatforming’. The latest manifestation of this is shown below in the form of a Facebook post made innocently into the Warwick District for EU group by another person, who was unaware of my ‘ban’.
The person had recommended that members of the group view my Brexit social impact film. You can view it by clicking here to check whether it is inappropriate or irrelevant. I understand that it is European Movement policy not to publish my posts due to the alleged ‘damage’ I have done to the organisation. No further communications were received, despite the offer to discuss privately and the person’s posts put on approval, thus blocking any further communications.
This censorship has been widespread across all social media platforms across the UK and as far as Spain, possibly further. It seems that this was a deliberate policy on the part of Anna Bird (CEO) enacted via members of the Executive / EM Council / Grassroots for Europe senior figures over an extended period. There are two sides to every story and I have decided to record here (with the evidence) my side of the story. I have done this in the form of a Q&A, as it is a complex affair. Censorship and deplatforming are the realm of hard right Brexit extremists, but it seems that the left also use the tool to control the minds of activists and grassroots people.
What position did I hold?
I have held the position of Chair of The European Movement (Mid Kent) for some time before this took place and was fired unilaterally by the CEO without reference to the Executive or National Council, in contravention of EM policy. A review took place with Dominic Grieve QC and the National Council and I was exonerated, nonetheless Anna Bird persisted with her decision.
Why was I expelled?
The CEO of EM was clearly irritated by two things I can talk about and one that I cannot. These almost certainly informed my expulsion without reference to the National Executive or Council and against EM policy.
In 2020 I was encouraged to apply to become Branches Forum Chair by senior EM figures. During the election campaign, it emerged that a concerted smear campaign had been organised against me and leveraged underground in secret WhatsApp groups by various individuals who favoured the other candidate. Sadly, one of the main agents of this (Patrick Reynolds) did not know how to use e-mail properly and inadvertently mailed me a copy of the smear letter, see below. Please note that there were only two candidates for election, so the other person mentioned in the red box below but not named was myself. Those involved: Reynolds, Wancke, Gaskell, Jacobson, Hammond and Gordon ran away when I challenged them on the matter directly.
The red box area refers to my candidacy as there were only two candidates
The key point about this letter is that I understand that it was sent to all 14 000 members of The European Movementdue to e-mail incompetence. This undoubtedly set the tone for everything else that took place and still means that people with whom I have had no contact are wary of me or block my content out of hand without any knowledge of what took place. I asked the other candidate, Yvonne Wancke, to ask these people to stop the smear campaign within her own campaign team. She refused. See her reply to me below.
Yvonne’s refusal to stop the campaign
I am not at liberty to discuss the reasons as to why Patrick Reynolds and Yvonne Wancke’s campaign team decided to do this. Suffice to say that there had been a previous legal challenge against EM which they lost, but which is subject to a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) or what is more usually referred to as a ‘gagging order’, so I have confined myself to subsequent matters to respect this agreement.
The second issue took place in 2021 when I was asked to attend the Reading Festival on behalf of the Young European Movement (YEM) to engage festival goers with anti-Brexit stickers and generally to raise awareness of YEM on their behalf. YEM sent a contract which explained that I could claim travel expenses. This I did, but EM ‘lost the claim’ multiple times over a matter of several months. Although I was complimented on my work at the festival, the process for follow up payment of expenses was shambolic.
YEM feedback to me
I counted approximately 150 e-mails sent about the expenses claim. Eventually the YEM President invented the excuse that I was older than their target demographic, should not have been invited to attend and refused to pay the agreed expenses. Nine months later, after I issued Small Claims Court proceedings, they paid the trivial sum that was owed, claiming that they did not have my contact details as the reason for gross incompetence and inefficiency. This is, of course, incorrect. As Branch Chair, they had access to my e-mail, phone number, address and so on. I had sent the claim by e-mail on up to five different occasions with bank details / Paypal contacts and so on. The submission to the Small Claims Court explains more of the timeline and sequence of excuses used.
This case continues, as there are court costs and charges to be paid. Naturally it is a source of irritation to the EM CEO, as they are in the ‘Prince Andrew’ position, having paid up for breaking the contract but now trying to claim zero responsibility for what happened. In November 2022 I offered in court to waive all charges and settle for the £50 court fee, but the President of YEM said he was unable to authorise this amount of money. I can only presume that the EM CEO blocked his ability to settle. Two weeks after the court hearing, and apparently after a board level consultation with Lord Adonis / Heseltine et al to authorise the £50 payment, the YEM President offered to accept my offer of paying the £50 court fee, but asked for a no-blame clause on their part, when they are clearly culpable, having been fined £3000 by HMRC before.
Was my expulsion from EM handled correctly?
No. Anna Bird claims that I was expelled for using bad language during my conversation with the YEM President. It’s absolutely true that, in sheer frustration, having been given the runaround by about four members of YEM over three months and about 150 e-mails, that I got the number of the YEM President and called them. They were not around to take my call so I left a voice message. Within the message I stated that ‘the payment processwas a fucking mess’. This was twisted into the idea that I had abused him personally. This is untrue. I was very specific when I talked about the process being a mess. Abuse would have been something like saying the person had one leg longer than the other and / or that they had bad breath etc.
Anna Bird then acted unilaterally without reference to the EM Executive or Council. I was made aware by a senior EM figure that she and Lord Adonis had an hour-long meeting to consider the ‘Reading Gate’ affair. I had originally been invited to an EM Council meeting to present my case. At short notice I was uninvited without explanation and told that the item was not to be tabled at the meeting after all. I then received an e-mail to tell me that I had been defenestrated without reference to any meetings, committees or EM policy.
I had originally been invited to an EM Council meeting to present my case. At short notice I was uninvited without explanation and told that the item was not to be tabled at the meeting after all. I then received an e-mail to tell me that I had been defenestrated without reference to any meetings, committees or EM policy. Some members of the EM Council felt strongly that this treatment was disproportionate, given that EM’s own media relations staff swear regularly on public fora. It was also against neurodiversity. A special general meeting was called with The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve (former Attorney General) in attendance, where these matters were considered. I was sanctioned for the language used to describe the sheer incompetence and obfuscation, but it was not considered a matter for expulsion. Anna Bird ignored the EM Council recommendation and the judgement of Dominic Grieve. At the present time I believe I am in the Schrödinger Chair position i.e. both Chair and not Chair at the same time.
Held in the presence of The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC
EM’s Head of Media Relations seems to swear wilfully in public ….
Was the smear campaign restricted to these incidents?
No. For example, I had been invited to an event featuring Gavin Esler by East Kent European Movement. I was subsequently uninvited, based on my decision to take EM to court for illegal acts. Below is the e-mail banning me from attendance. Mr Beevor clearly knew nothing of the real reasons for the court case, as he indicates that he has no idea why I took EM to court. Generally speaking, people don’t take people to court and win their case if there is no case to answer. Please note the ‘not so hidden hand’ of Chris Hammond in the cc list. He was part of the previous smear campaign for Team Wancke and this demonstrates the pervasive long-term nature of this campaign and its impact on people who have no idea what took place, hence the need for this transparency statement.
BANNED without reason
Did I try to sort this out myself rather than whingeing on here?
Of course I did. I wrote to Lord Adonis and Richard Wilson (Grassroots for Europe Chair) on more than one occasion. This was the result:
Brexit Blockers
You may be wondering why Bremain in Spain and The National Rejoin March (NRM) joined in with the blocking here. This is a key point. The smear campaign on WhatsApp and other platforms coupled with how social media works means that people who do not know the story or the people involved spread the message without any real knowledge of what actually took place. In Bremain’s case, Sue Wilson (Chief of Bremain) is closely connected to Wilson and Adonis and Wilson worked behind the scenes on the NRM. The NRM know nothing of my work but took Sue Wilson’s word for it. When I challenged them on the matter, they too ran away.
One of the pile ons – there were many from Bremain in Spain members and others
Have I damaged EM?
No. One of Anna Bird’s claims is that I have damaged The European Movement. I have made a lot of suggestions on how EM can be a more effective national movement over the years and offered my services pro-bono as a professional business and OD consultant way back, something that most organisations I have worked for as a business consultant and author generally welcome. But I have not told lies, deleted inconvenient truths, blocked people who disagree with me or targeted personalities in my suggestions for better strategy, organisation and execution of strategy and so on.
In any case, all businesses and organisations are subject to a thing called customer feedback. If I were to challenge Virgin, Tesco, Currys, Pfizer, B&Q at al on matters of product design, customer service, strategy, innovation and so on, or make suggestions for improvement to their offering, most intelligent enterprises would at least look at the suggestions rather than shooting the messenger out of hand. Why then do EM believe that they should be excluded from such scrutiny? As a former Council board member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), part of our role was to be a ‘critical friend’, as the eyes and ears of the enterprise, to help it seize opportunities and head off or avoid threats etc. This is normal business practice and the reason why most companies have Non-Exec Directors.
Moreover, Richard Wilson’s own feedback in the private WhatsApp group demonstrates that I have not damaged EM. See below. Richard published some other messages in this group but then deleted them as they were potentially libellous. Anna Bird is a member of this group and thus had oversight of these messages. She chose to do nothing, allowing the rumour machine to grow out of control. More recently, Mike Galsworthy reported that EM has gone from strength to strength in an attempt in his bid to become Chair of EM to replace Lord Adonis. Over the period of the alleged damage, EM membership has increased by 2000, a healthy 14% set against an environment when most pro-EU / anti-Brexit activists have given up campaigning about Brexit faced with mass gaslighting by the Government and a virtual silencing of the media and political opposition on the subject of Brexit. Anna Bird has also reported outstanding EM growth under her watch just recently.
In the below message, Peter Packham requests that an article I wrote for London for Europe be censored. He is told by Emma Knaggs that it is up to groups whether they do this but clearly indicates a deliberate policy that had reached ordinary members of EM. She also has no idea why I had been defenestrated from EM but repeats the lie. Sussex for Europe booked me to talk at one of their events and also faced pressure to ban me from appearing in Brighton. They refused.
What does reputational damage really look like?
In one single tweet, Lord Andrew Adonis caused more damage to The European Movement than anyone else that I can recall. Adonis launched a campaign to demonise Tories holding seats in the red wall area of Britain. In doing so, his indiscriminate campaign targeted former remain Tories such as David Lidington and others who had remained loyal to EM and the cause of rejoining the EU. This led to the departure of The Conservative European Forum (CEF) from The European Movement, with figures such as The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC placing distance between themselves and the EM and Lord Heseltine having to act as a bridge to hold the fractured organisation together. If you are a Labour voter you may well say “so what if the Tories are expunged from EM?” However, Brexit is a cross-party issue requiring skilful advocacy within all political parties. Andrew’s tweet disenfranchised remain voting Conservatives in one move. My activities, claiming immoral and indecent behaviour in elections and illegal accounting practices pale into insignificance by comparison and are completely justified in any case.
The accusation that I had ‘thwarted’ the EM’s efforts is reminiscent of the recent interview by Isabel Oakeshott and Richard Tice with Lord Heseltine, where Oakeshott suggested that Heseltine had thwarted Brexit singlehandedly. It’s a ridiculous accusation, since Leavers have held the levers of power for the last six and a half years and have had plenty of time to execute Brexit. Simply to say that Brexit hadn’t been done because someone else without power chose to moan about it is faintly ridiculous. It is just as ridiculous to suggest that I singlehandedly thwarted the EM, an organisation of now 17 000 members, with an international reach and budget to match. A colleague remarked that they were surprised that EM had not suggested that I started the war in Ukraine and / or to have brought aliens to land hot air balloons in the USA or sent Liz Truss to mediate in China.
Isabel Oakeshott – Were the voters sold a pack of lies about brexit?
A reasonable question to ask would be “Is all of the above this just a series of unfortunate events or a deliberate policy?”, in short, cock-up or conspiracy? The reason I favour a planned deliberate campaign (conspiracy if you will) can be summed up as follows:
The physical evidence of smear letters sent to all 14 000 EM members, only some of which can be reported here.
Many WhatsApp exchanges, only some of which are reproduced here.
The fact that people who could not possibly know of my activities or who I am have an impression of what I do without having ever experienced or seen any of my work.
Anna Bird indicated that this was a policy decision in a reply to the person who complained about the censorship. She says “but many, like Warwickshire, have chosen not to engage or to share his content”. The word many implies some kind of top-down briefing rather than a gradual diffusion through people who actually know me, in the same way that Patrick Reynolds applied the ‘send to all’ button in his smear campaign.
Conclusions and next steps
I’m a firm believer in truth and transparency and have written this detailed report in the spirit of balancing what is taking place here. It is up to others to judge for themselves what is taking place and to decide where the truth lies. I have been libelled for raising legitimate moral concerns about electoral processes and raising a Small Claims Court case about illegal accounting practices at The European Movement.
It is now incumbent upon The European Movement to make amends for the spread of fake news and various deletions, distortions and generalisations that have occurred, wilfully in my opinion. I will be writing to the Executive and some others asking them to issue a full unreserved and public apology to put things right in due course.
Kier Starmer offered a dignified and full apology yesterday over his appointment of “Mandelstein” or “Mandy”. Subject to transparency via the investigation, that is sufficient in my view. Why do I say that, you may well ask? Starmer actually sacked Mandy where others did not. He has persuaded M to step down as a Lord. In due course and subject to there being sufficient evidence, Mandy will be prosecuted and possibly jailed. Later on we are likely to see similar outcomes with Michelle Mone and others. All takes time, but the law moves at a very slow pace. Farage law is not a suitable replacement for the rule of law as some CONform nutjobs suggest (“Farage Law” amounts to saying “Your eyes are too close together” or “You have a bit of a tan … GO TO JAIL”).
James O’Brien asked the question why did we not know all of this when Mandy was appointed as “Ferrero RocherAmbassador and Defence Against The Dark TrumPutin Arts” to face down Trump in 2025. I was in fact one person who did predict that this appointment would end in tears in time – it was not a question of if but when. If you work in HR, one normally has a list of essential and desirable qualities plus contra-indications for your selection process. Mandy did possess some qualities which will have been judged as postives, and I suspect that McSweeney et al did not use my checklist below to look at the massive list of contra-indications. Starmer’s weakness is perhaps that he listened to McSweeney. It’s a forgiveable leadership sin, especially when weighed against the actions that Starmer has now taken to rectify the error. I say this objectively as someone who is not a massive Starmer fan. At the time, we must remember that we were beleagured by Brexit, and therefore wanting to be friends with ANYONE and EVERYONE on the international stage. Although it’s not clever, I think I understand why Starmer may have come to the conclusion that Mandy was an essential evil to tame the 5 Ts : Trump’s Toddler (Todger !!) Temper Tantrums. Although I very much doubt that proper HR processes were used, a sober analysis of the situation may have revealed the looming problem of Mandelstein to those possessed with hubris when advising / lobbying Keir Starmer.
Dear Keir
Starmer stood up for decency and the rule of law yesterday and, for that, I give him a free pass. That said, it comes with some Terms and Conditions:
Morgan McSweeney must go. He is the architect of much of this and will have lobbied Starmer to accept Mandy, having also persuaded him to oust Sue Gray for opposing him.
Editor’s note. Starmer has now done this. Praise where it’s due. If he next manages to get Mandie banged up, he will cast a long shadow on Reform, The Tories and the populists polluting our politics on planet earth. STOP PRESS 23 Feb 2026 – Mandy has been arrested. I may have to buy a hat to eat !!
Credit where it's due. Well done to Keir Starmer for removing Morgan McSweeney from Downing Street. I'm no fan of Keir but he has done what none of the others would have done. If he gets Mandelson banged up, he will cast a shadow on the populists around the world. Still more to do but good show.
Brexit must be ended as a priority, not in 2032, as some Labour MPs suggest. Fix the fundamentals as Keir likes to say a lot. Brexit lies at the heart of a lot of Britain’s problem as our Brexit Iceberg shows
Policy making which prays to the far right fascist fringe must stop. Remember, 90% of Reform accounts are bots. Many of Starmer’s bad decisions have been aimed at appeasement of the far right. It is ALWAYS a mistake to appease fascists.
More should be made of the good works that Labour are doing. This is a comms issue, which once again lies at McSweeney’s door.
Mainstream media
I was shoe horned onto LBC at 11.57 today (Fri 6 Feb) (thank you by the way) to try to explain all of this in ‘just a minute’. Find the playback on the LBC app or here on our radio interviews with MSM:
Click the image to listen to the LBC segment on our bandcamp page.
My friend Dr Raj Persaud also made this superb piece of analysis on the matter of Mandy.
Turn despair into action
Write to your MP, enclosing a hard copy of our book Brexit RIP, written by 60 British and European citizens, including two MEPs, a KC and many eminent experts .. Hard copy books have a much longer “social journey” than bleating about it on social media. They get passed around and so on. Gift copies to your circle of contacts, especially those soft leavers who are starting to doubt the idea that Brexit was a sticking plaster for all of our problems, and Rejoiners who consider the matter closed for a host of reasons. Relight the fire.
Hard copies have a much better ‘social journey’ than e-mail. Much better for MPs, influencers and social contacts.
It was Ken Clarke that popularised the term “the indifferent majority” … aka the vast swathe of people who couldn’t give a fcuk about politics. Farage has weaponised some of them into a loose cabal, united by swans, painting roundabouts, disinformation, shouting at hotels, attacking women and children, paedophilia and flagshagging. They are not the subject of this article however. Here I refer to the great swathe of Remainers / Rejoiners who know what they are against (Brexit and its offspring), but who are unwilling to do anything functional about it, apart from bleating about it on social media, which we all do, but is in effect it’s merely a form of therapy. It achieves very little apart from a release of angst into the ether. Worse still, the Brexiteers mostly love it, as it increases their sense of “winning”. Living as I do in Brexit Central, Reform types love nothing more than the “salty tears of Remoaners”. Nigel Farage benefits tremendously as Remoaners are, in effect, his unpaid marketing force as Reform fans are united by shared victimhood at Maslow’s sense of belonging level of his hierarachy:
Maslow’s hierarchy reframed.
Remoaners generally have no strategy. This, in part, is due to a leadership and strategy and collaboration tactics vacuum at the “top” of the movement. I have written about our structural deficit many times before and in the books. The Rejoin movement resembles Indonesia, 17000 islands, some uninhabited with a few big ones (European Brexit Movement, Best for Brexit Britain etc.), none of whom collaborate and all of whom have different ideas about the “destination and journey” (What, Why and How) of our quest. When asked about what to do about Rejoining the EU, they come up with many different objections, some of which are captured in this graphic. We’ll never achieve anything like this.
Only the cat is a valid objection …
Paul Cawthorne sums up the poverty of the “incrementalist” approach rather well …
Cherry pickers guide – TY Paul Cawthorne.
I have become tired of fighting this war on two fronts. I don’t mind dealing with Leave voters, but dealing with Remoaners who are acting to preserve the stasis sucks the very life out of me … am I beginning to sound like Liz Truss here? !! 🙂
One of my final actions before retirement was to speak about this at the recent North Herts for Europe event, where I also gave a synopsis of the Brexit RIP book. Find the masterclass below. The event was invaded by Reform UK types exposing themselves (literally), although I have removed the offensive material here.
If you like this, send copies of the book Brexit RIP to MPs and influencers. It’s far more effective than posting memes and shouting on social media to be frank. I await the hate mail and excuses from Remoaners … It’s the ideal Christmas gift for Brexiteers in remorse and Remainers in remission. QR codes are below for sharing with friends and connections. My Labour MP has a copy and is circulating it within the government, which is where we need to be if we are to be effective influencers.
Brexit is dead … but the body is still in our lounge … get rid of it.
QR codes. Also available direct from the author at a discount via e-mail reboot@brexitrage.com
Announcing a new contributor to our platform. Raj or “The Brexit Undertaker”, “The Brexorcist”, “The Dark Knight” or “Q-Anon” is a British Indian who is fed up with English passivity on Brexit and a whole slew of issues affecting our sceptered isle. He pulls no punches, taking out the mealy mouthed apologists, Remoaners, Starmerites, Gammon and keyboard warriors by name, without apology. Needless to say, I don’t agree with everything or everyone he chooses to take lumps out of, but I agree with his right to say it. He lives in the Brexity West Midlands under cover. This is his first article of a series entitled Bravery.
Click to view Brexit RIP.
Bravery
We live in a time where the PLP have full control over Parliament and were told by their mouthpieces that they’d do something about Brexit. We are still receiving false assurances from some of Starmer’s mouthpieces like Phil Moorhouse and Graham Hughes (Editor’s note, I personally think that Phil does a good job), although I hope that more people are beginning to ask questions, seek specifics and lobby their MP and influencers with copies of the book Brexit RIP : Reboot Britain. I wrote this on Remembrance day, the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, which led to the creation of our NHS but also the EU.
It was the 80th anniversary where we commemorate the brave men & women who fought against fascism at home and abroad. The NHS is an institution we all should cherish and be proud of. The memory of those who gave their lives to fight fascism is why we should fight with all we have to honour the sacrifices they made for us. Brexit and the current trajectory we are on of not undoing it risks the Reform party coming to power and the loss of our NHS. In order to honour their memory, we need to show something that each and every one of them showed- BRAVERY. There were also those who domestically fought against the allies of fascists in Oswald Moseley’s blackshirts. Our predecessors wouldn’t have tolerated him becoming PM, neither should we. Failure to fight and reverse Brexit will result in his heir, Farage, becoming PM.
BRAVERY is the 7 elements we should possess from a mental perspective to fight the fascists.
Brexit is the root cause of all the problems we face. Be it human rights, cost of living, fascism on the rise. See Brexit RIP : Reboot Britain for a sober evaluation of the opportunities we can grasp by Rejoining the EU.
Remember and Revere those who gave their lives to fight fascism by continuing their battle. Also remember whose actions & inaction led to the mess we are in right now- Corbyn & Starmer are both the enemy here, as are the Tories & Tarage. Corbyn’s three line whip, refusal to leave power and his own authoritarian moves have been used against him by Starmer against him.
Accountability and Actions Daily actions matter, not just waiting for the next election. Every MP who voted to trigger Article 50, every corrupt deal made during Covid, is likely to have committed Public Office Misconduct. This offence carries a potential life sentence. If Nonce Andrew lost his title as a Royal, anyone is fair game, especially MPs. This is the realm of legal activists and not something we currently have the legal muscle or finances to do. You can change that by supporting us.
Vision We need to be bold, think big and have a target in mind for what success looks like. See Brexit RIP : Reboot Britain Brexit is the root cause of our issues, it is something we need to remember and accountability is the desired goal by which we reverse this. The impacts are in the book and you can find our vision and five goals of how we’d spend what we’ve lost on improving people’s lives. Accountability for MPs who have committed crimes & those engaging in corruption needs to be part of it. See the Brexit iceberg for a simplified multiple cause and effect diagram.
The Brexit Iceberg. Read more at Brexit RIP. Click to read.
Epstein To deliver our vision, to have accountability, to remember who led us to this, we need a unified message. What better than Epstein – this ties Farage, The Royal Family, Trump and the Tories together. All are involved in this. People hate corruption and bringing down the corrupt is essential to bringing about the world we want.
Reclaim the narrative and language. We need to position ourselves as the patriots, the ones who love our country. This is done by explaining our vision, how rejoining will make our lives better, and through the gentle art and discipline of Brexorcism.
Read the book of Brexorcism.
You This is aimed at some Caucasian readers, who love to deny the systemic nature of bigotry, by saying that they can’t be racist because they don’t use the N Word. Looking the other way, while abuse of this nature is inflicted upon those who aren’t part of the In group (not white) are abused, often illegally. How much do you want to succeed, to deliver this vision and achieve accountability by reversing Brexit?
Editor’s note: I’m not a member of this group, but English passivity and culture lie at the root of this issue. Changing culture is not a five minute job. You are encouraged to read my books on OD and culture change.
I have long advocated the need for “Mass Brexorcisms” on an individual level, to heal the divides brought about by Brexit disinformation. I developed the proven methodology in our book Reboot Britain – Changing tired minds on Brexit. Sadly, my advice largely fell on deaf ears. Admittedly a “Brexorcism” requires vast supplies of skill, patience, empathy / UPR and time, lots of it, spread out over time, to be effective. But we must gradually talk people down from “Farage’s fictional mountains” of myths, mythinformation and downright lies. Brexorcism is therefore very effective but also very inefficient, as a way to change the minds of the masses.
Brexorcism summed up.
So, we must move from individuals to groups and whole communities. Although I have dealt with social groups, operating at scale for whole communities is not within our capacity. However, it IS within reach of political parties seeking to restore trust, truth and confidence in our politics. This will deflate the “dogwhistle” variant favoured by the populists and fantasists.
A National Conversation
To this end, I propose a nationwide series of town hall type events and a sustained campaign to restore truth and trust to politics. Better Britain events will combine notable speakers and experts with the crucial element of actually listening to the lived experience of those who would normally not get involved in politics via expertly facilitated small group sessions. In doing so, we will tease out a common vision of what would constitute a Better Britain. I’m under no illusions as to just how important it will be for this to be designed properly. I am available to help political parties do the necessary groundwork from my other side of life as a management / organisation and change consultant.
Who will do this?
I favour a coalition of progressive parties, such as the Lib Dems and Greens to engage communities. However, it it is clearly Labour and The Conservatives who have the most skin in the game to deal with people who believe that Reform UK is the only answer to our problems in Britain. We offer the idea to anyone who wishes to put an end to the populist rot that is infesting our nation.
Reboot Britain
If people wish to support a pilot scale event, to show the political parties what it looks like, I am happy to mount such an event with funding. Please go to Support Us, if you would like to see a better Britain.
I have written many times on the fragmentation of the Remain / Rejoin organisation and likened our movement to that of Indonesia (17 000 islands, many with just a few inhabitants etc.). For more detail on the OD issues, see Reasons to be Helplessand Indonesia. Last week I attended the so-called Brexit reset summit to meet a few colleagues. In passing, I made a trip down memory lane and it was good to catch up with a few friends. Although this will grate a little with some of you reading this, I was not impressed with the organisation of the event, save for the Three Million, who at least had thought about some level of coherence.
Shouting at the wind
Steve Bray dominated the protest with his SODEM fan club. It was the usual bad karaoke punctuated by occasional shouting. In case of doubt, I helped to start the street activism that became SODEM (Stand of Defiance European Movement – itself a two fingered salute to The European Movement). Some of you may therefore see my critique as being based on jealousy. It is not. The trouble with the SODEM protest is that it fails to provide any meaningful content or substance to journalists. Instead they use it as a colourful backdrop to their own stories, which is widely regarded as a joke by critics.
Photo backdrops may please those that appear in the pictures but it means that Remain still has no a credible voice in Mainstream Media – See objective 2 of our five goals. Where I live in Brexit Central, leave voters think that Steve Bray IS the sum total of our movement. It’s very hard to push back on this view.
Style and substance
Some Remainers still don’t understand the need to balance substance (content) with style (delivery). I made several attempts to get Steve a regular podcast with Jon Snow of Channel 4 some years back. I also gave several other suggestions to professionalise SODEM’s work, such as making the compilation video interviews. However, the C4 opportunity was disregarded out of hand and I (and Jon) were shouted down by the mob. Our protest at Parliament remains literally a one man show with a loud hailer and an amplifier. This is a far cry from the diverse and more inclusive offerings of previous incarnations.
Even Steve himself has done better. For example, when he used to intercept politicians with his Socratic questioning style. These were often deeply penetrating pieces rather than “shouting at the wind”. Whilst the loud hailer was amusing for a while, Steve’s act has not changed and it grates with professional journalists trying to do their job. Sadly, this is what many people see as our public face. We can and have done much better.
No more heroes
I’m told that Steve has made several millions from his protests. People love to support lone heroes and this satiates their own guilt, allowing them to do nothing. We have always needed distributed leadership and not heroic leadership – see the academic literature on these terms.
Pressure groups … not
I was astonished to see that the “real” European Movement made a claim on Linkedin that their own pressure had led to Keir Starmer’s reset. In fact, the elements in the so-called reset were included in the Labour 2024 Manifesto. Having once been a leader of an EM group, I’m afraid to say that they are not leaders, not even fast followers but laggards, in terms of being a pressure group. The leader of the Rejoin Party nailed the point:
“The purpose of a pressure group is to apply pressure, NOT to align themselves with one party’s manifesto commitments.”
Brendan Donnelly, former MEP.
Illogical incrementalism
It was Andrew Adonis, EM Chair, who sold the Remainers the false narrative of “step by step” aka logical incrementalism.
Hardly stretch targets. Just Labour Policy or opportunistic asks (defence).
Leadership is needed
I make these remarks in the hope that this prompts some continuous improvement in both areas. Labour will move only if they see considerable political advantage in doing so. Influence comes from both “push” and “pull” communications’ strategies. SODEM’s voice is an extreme form of push communications and is no longer very persuasive. EM’s voice does not push or pull our leaders to action at all, being totally in the pocket of their intended audience. “Creative tension” is always needed between leaders and their intended audience, rather than corrosive tension or no tension at all. See Peter Senge for more on creative tension and leadership of change.
Reset or Reboot and Rejoin?
It is clear that the only good Brexit reset is a dead Brexit. Read more by subscribing to our newsletter (free). Labour must find more courage. Rejoin won’t wait until 2032 as the damage of Brexit will be largely complete, much of it irreversible. The only piece of solace from the Brexit reset is the agreement to dynamic alignment. Still this is thin gruel. Starmer has managed to upset both ‘sides’ of the Brexit debate. Labour are banking on the belief that the Remainers are more forgiving. We shall see ….
This article in The Guardian is being shared widely by Rejoiners at the moment. It is a good piece of academic analysis. Yet I have some problems with a couple of the points it makes (I guess that’s unsurprising!!). It’s a long piece, so buckle yourself in for a long ride. Here’s what I really like about the piece:
Consonance
The article correctly states that the Brexit mindset is a complex interwoven set of beliefs (coalitions within coalitions) that keep getting reinforced by our populist media. I articulated this via my ‘Brexit Brain’ model below. Quite why I coined the phrase ‘Brexorcism‘ to describe the complex quasi-religious mindset change process in the book Reboot Britain.
“It’s really hard. We see tremendous stability over very long periods of time. A choice like Brexit provides endless stimuli to feed that brain activity. It’s coalitions within coalitions within coalitions…” Darren Schreiber.
The Brexit Brain – Read more by clicking the brain.
Thus, normal approaches to change management are not valid: ‘Carrots and sticks; are often used to change simple levels of behaviour and performance at work. For example, if you pay people more, they might work harder for a while. Put them under threat, they may also work harder, go on strike, work less or leave the company etc. But changing Kwasi-religious beliefs such as Brexit is a whole different ball game. It’s not a rational choice as the Guardian article rightly explains.
Whole brained change
I advocate a blend of so-called left (more analytical) and right brained (more emotional) thinking to reach deep into the Brexit psyche of my ‘clients’, what is known as a ‘hearts and minds’ approach in business consulting circles. Using hard hitting emotional headlines to grab people by the heart and longer more analytical approaches to ensure that their heads fall in line with their hearts. The dual approach is epitomised in the book Private Eyelines, a book targeted at leave voters to help them understand how they were lied to. p.s. DO NOT buy the book on Amazon. I get a £2.00 royalty on a sale of £32.99 for six months work, as Amazon keep all the profits! Whilst I don’t write books as an income source, I also don’t write them to boost Amazon’s profits. If you wish to buy a copy direct at an author’s discount, talk to me direct via reboot@brexitrage.com. By the way the left-right brain divide has been questioned but the idea of whole brain thinking (analytical and emotional) is a handy notion to help us think about the need to reach head and heart.
“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” Leon Festinger.
Another truism in the article is the belief that all leave voters are unresponsive to dialogue, thick or closed. This reveals itself in oft quoted statements by some Remainers, who say things like “You can’t educate pork”, “I’ve tried everything” and “They are thick as mince”. Truth be told, some Remainers lack the skills, patience and time to conduct effective Brexorcisms. Also it really matters who you choose as your ‘client’. There really is no point working on a ‘Nigel Farage type hardcore Brexiters’ but many leave voters are not hard leavers. Selection of your targets is key, both in terms of where they sit on the Remain – Leave continuum and to what extent they are key opinion formers for others who follow their views.
“When you pathologise the other side, there’s no point in reaching out to them” Brian Hughes.
Relationship and rapport is key
The article goes on to say something terribly important. “If there is a way through this, he suggests, it is to break down the myths of us and them.” A successful Brexorcism only operates on the basis of a strong relationship and a basic bond of trust. If you are going to challenge beliefs, you need a massive ‘bank balance’ of relationship power to succeed. This is why Steve Bray and his cult have changed very few minds by ‘shouting at people’ in Parliament, upsetting sympathetic media people into the process. In case of doubt, I started on the street with Steve at No 10 Vigil. He quickly spotted that the real action was at Parliament instead of Downing Street and set up a splinter group. Later on, I tried to gain him a permanent platform with other figures at Channel 4 News which he rejected. Of course, Steve’s activities outside the House of Commons have other functions. However, his finest moments were when he quietly but firmly ask politicians difficult questions using a Socratic style and a ‘servant leadership’ approach. But everything counts. We need to use all the therapeutic communication styles as discussed by John Heron in Reboot Britain. Social settings such as cafes, pubs etc. are often more helpful than formal settings, hence my comments about the sauna below, although the sauna is not the only environment in which you can change someone’s mind about Brexit!
In the article, Carol Tavris confirms the view that ‘consonance’ or rapport is vital as a starting point for a successful Brexorcism. The conversation is a healthy mixture of what Comms people call ‘pull’ and ‘push’ strategies or what musicians and psychologists call consonance and dissonance. Finding some common ground is extremely important or giving away trivial wins in order to build a connection. One of the difficulties I notice in some activists is their fundamentalist need to ‘win’ all the arguments with leave voters. It’s better to let them have some small wins in the dance of Brexorcism.
“When we argue with somebody about their beliefs, the absolute crucial thing to avoid is making them feel foolish. If you say something like, ‘How could you be so stupid?’, that will almost always make your listener become even more committed to their belief. If you say instead, ‘Well, many of my own expectations turned out not to be the case too’, that might be a place to start.”
Dissonance
The Guardian article suggests that we must fully convert people to become Rejoiners. This is akin to a religious conversion or what I call a 360-degree Brexorcism. This is fundamentally incorrect. All we need to deliver as a ‘MVP‘ (Minimum Viable Product” is to move people from the idea that Brexit is a good idea towards ambivalence or doubt about the value of Brexit, a 180-degree Brexorcism. This is a much easier task. This converts in behavioural terms to people not voting in another referendum / General Election to support a Brexit party or possibly voting for a pro-Rejoin party to balance out their previous vote. Obviously a full conversion to the cause would be a much stronger position but, as the article points out, it is much more difficult. This is like trying convert a moderate Christian to Islamic fundamentalism when we only need to go as far as agnosticism, not even atheism.
Our approach to Brexorcism has validation from low-profile approaches to change which were reported on by the BBC some while back. A Brexorcism blends ideas from psychology, sociology, anthropology and therapeutic interventions. People who tell me that you cannot change the minds of Brexit voters simply have not understood the fundamentals of Brexorcism which requires large doses of skill, patience and time. I’m offering a free masterclass on the topic for North Hertfordshire for Europe on Sunday November 19th at 5.00 pm via ZOOM. Contact me to reserve your place. I am also willing to give keynotes and masterclasses on our UK tour to develop a cadre of Brexorcists. This is vital if we are to move the dial faster on Brexit regret by a General Election.
.
Brexorcism
The will of the people has changed
My other major beef with the article is that it suggests that “though there is some anecdotal and polling evidence that there has been a shift in sentiment, and that remain might now prevail, the same polls show very little appetite to reopen the question.” This is incorrect on two levels:
There has been a seismic shift from 4% to 24% of people that believe that Brexit has failed. By 2024 it is quite feasible that 70% of people will believe that Brexit has failed. At that point politicians will no longer be able to look the other way.
Whilst it’s true that there is currently no appetite to reopen the Brexit question, this is merely a feature of where we have got to in the cycle. Also, of course, a sense of foreboding that another referendum would re-open all the family feeds / social angst and so on. However, another bloody referendum is not the only way to settle the matter. It is also quite certain that not opening up the difficult question will mean that the wounds of Brexit will remain with us for generations to come. Some kind of healing could actually take place with a grown-up recognition that Brexit has failed and that rejoining the EU is both possible and desirable. There is an embedded assumption that we MUST do this via a referendum. It ain’t necessarily so. See this article for London for Europe and Reboot Britain on the choices we face.
Myths and Riffs of Brexit
I note that the last remaining Brexiters are putting forward a number of myths to silence debate. Sadly some remainers also buy into these myths due to learned helplessness. For example:
‘Learned helplessness’ on the part of Remainers plays into a passive acceptance of the idea that Brexit is done and it cannot be undone. This is the belief that we don’t deserve to join anew as it might be considered anti-democratic etc. However, a referendum won through fraud, fake social media ads and which was judged illegal by the Supreme Court had it been mandatory is not the high-water mark of democracy. Leavers were not satisfied by a super majority (67.2% on a 64% turnout) in the initial referendum to join the EU in 1975. Nor should we.
Learned Helplessness summed up. We must not subscribe to it.
Indonesia– our structural deficit
Learned helplessness prevails in a vacuum of leadership and a lack of coherent strategy. Whilst the Remain movement was relatively united in the summer of 2019 after a number of victories, the 2019 election fragmented people again along political party lines. There are now as many proposals on how we rejoin as there are pundits. I describe the organisational structure of the Remain movement as being like Indonesia i.e. 17 000 islands and a few bigger ones. But all operating independently. The bigger beasts such as the European Movement compete with other actors such as Best for Britain. Others prefer to plough their own furrow. Some have been asleep at the wheel, calling for Remainers to make the most of Brexit. Yet, the only good Brexit is a dead Brexit. The consequence of being ‘Indonesia’ is that we find it hard to do things at scale. Fragmentation of strategy / structure and poor leadership also mean that we spend as much time arguing internally about strategy as we do in acting on Brexit and Rejoin. I set out five goals which we coalesce around on a monthly basis. It ain’t perfect but we do our best to provide clarity and collaborative leadership across a group of people from Europe. Join us some Mondays at 8 pm UK time via ZOOM. See also our article on Strategies to Join EU anew.
17 000 islands. A few bigger ones.
Five goals to join anew.
Not fade away
One specific point in the article which is not quite correct is the mention of BBC Question Time’s Brexit special event in Clacton. The journalist stated that the audience was made up entirely of those who voted leave. He went on to suggest that this was presumably to ensure the debate would not simply descend into an all-too familiar slanging match. We actually attended the event and talked with people on the street in Clacton. Levels of ‘Bregret’ were widespread in Brexity Clacton outside the event. They were also quite easy to get from people who realised that they had been taken for fools. The Brexit voting audience were also happy to speak with us after the event and many were of the view that Brexit had failed and that they were lied to. It is therefore a mistake to assume that all Brexiters attending BBC QT are now fully committed to Brexit.
This was mirrored in Brexit voting Deal the other week and on BBC Any Questions in Tory voting Southend on 17 August 2023, where the audience failed to applaud any of the statements made by the Tory panel member. Having been at the centre of some extreme nastiness by Brexiters, including the ex Met Policeman who issued threats of violence, spray painted my house and attended with a knife, I observe from Brexit voting Kent that the slanging matches have largely subsided. However, the article is correct when it infers that the products of Brexit won’t go away by not talking about it. See our Brexit iceberg below. Like it or loathe it, Brexit is the smelly dump and stain in the toilet bowel of life that won’t flush.
The Brexit Iceberg.
Brexit will continue to traumatise a generation if we do not burst the boil of Brexit one way or another. I believe in facing problems rather than sweeping them under political carpets. Labour in particular will be culpable for assisting the tragedy of Brexit if they continue to look away. Much in the way that the vast majority of good German people were silenced through fear during Hitler’s populist uprising. Fence sitting on Brexit is assent.
“The Tories will crow about Brexit being done. The Labour frontbench will solemnly observe that past tense, and avoid the B-word, as if it is a triggering trauma for the party and the country, best left undisturbed.”
Brexit is the smelly dump and stain in the toilet bowl of life that won’t flush
Lost consonance
As an aside, I found the opening paragraph about ‘Brexit hard man’ Steve Baker an unusual lead into the Guardian piece. I saw Mr Baker’s attempt to draw sympathy from the public to be a calculated attempt to humanise him as a piece of electioneering and not a window on his tortured Brexit soul. No decent Christian would agree with the human principles on which Brexit is founded. Like everything else with Brexit, it’s just another set of illusions. For example, The European Research Group (ERG) does no research. The weaponisation of asylum seekers to appeal to racists and people with feeble minds is not what Jesus would have done. and so on. Baker uses his faux Christianity as a shield and has now turned into a snowflake to gain sympathy from his constituents using the Brexit confessional box. Baker’s so called mental illness, beard growth and acne were mobilised as excuses. Krishnan Guru-Murphy’s analysis was correct when he pointed out that Baker was a C…nt.
Baker explained “I felt repugnant, hateful, to blame for all of the troubles that we had, absolutely without any joy, constantly worried about everything to the point of mental torment. A constant state of panic attacks and anxiety”. So he should, for all the pain he has inflicted on our children and those having anxiety, depression and lost careers / jobs / livelihoods due to Brexit. In fact, Baker should be in jail alongside Rees-Mogg who promised us cheap training shoes, Farage who promised a boom in fish and chips and Johnson who said that Brexit would make my wife’s breasts bigger. I’ve checked several times. They haven’t.
Charles Radley is mounting a campaign to persuade some MPs to change to a pro-EU party (e.g. Lib-Dem, Green, SNP, Plaid Cymru). First we are targeting those Labour constituencies where the MP is known to be pro-EU and where a pro-EU party came second in 2024. But we plan to do much more in terms of lobbying MPs across Britain with books and other resources. Can you help? Please fill in the questionnaire at this Google forms link so we can organise our campaigning most effectively. Thanks !
Here is our review of the Rejoin EU debate in Parliament on 24 March which found that Brexit was overwhelmingly a disaster. You can read the full transcript here.
Rage Against The Brexit Machine
There was unified Rage Against The Brexit Machine from right across the political spectrum save for the Tory party and Reform UK, who were too scared to attend. This rage even included Labour, who came as close as possible to being censured by the Labour party machine. Stella Creasy, in particular, gave an excoriating account of the damage being inflicted by Brexit, but, of course, stopped short of calling for Labour to reverse it, putting party before country. They will pay for this in support as I understand from inside sources that people are leaving Labour in droves. Is she waiting for her moment to unseat Starmer? We shall see. Here is an excerpt:
“Brexit is a disaster. It is a disaster by anybody’s metric, not least those according to whom it was purported to be a route to the promised land. The pandemic spared some of the blushes of those who still try to claim that we have got some elusive sovereignty as a result of leaving the European Union, but we can see the damage. Our constituents can see the damage.
Many Members have already cited some of the relevant figures; let me cite some more. As a result of Brexit, 1.8 million fewer jobs have been created in our economy, and that number is likely to rise to 3 million by 2035. Some 16,500 small businesses have stopped exporting to Europe all together. Those of us who were part of the parliamentary delegation last week had the pleasure of listening to Lord Frost trying to argue that up was down, but we know the truth for our constituents. We have seen the damage.
To me, the Brexiteers are like those people—we all have met them on a night out—who join the group, start a fight in the club and get everyone kicked out, but who still maintain, three hours later, as they are walking everyone around a completely empty industrial estate somewhere, that they know a great club that everyone can get into.”
Stella Creasy
Former Labour MP Rosie Duffield extinguished the notion that Labour had made an election promise NOT to reverse Brexit, by pointing out the many election promises already broken by Labour.
“The people now in charge were campaigning, with those of us who were here then, against Brexit several years ago, and I would like them to stick to that.”
Rosie Duffield
Creasy chose a particularly pathetic excuse to justify why Brexit could not be ended, by stating that it would be “difficult”. FFS, this is the job of politics and politicians, to do difficult things to make the world a better place!! Brexit was difficult, so stating the obvious as a reason to do nothing was possibly one of the ludicrous reasons to let Brexit continue that I’ve heard. This fits in with Paul Cawthorne’s list of reasons to do nothing articulated by Remoaners on an almost daily basis.
Friends Reunited
The debate was very cordial and was a model example of the kind of democratic behaviour we can return to when the Brexit nightmare has been put into a grave. It gave a united voice to the many Lib Dems who spoke, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Independents. Impressive stuff from all. Here’s a few highlights:
“We can see from the number of Liberal Democrat contributions that this subject is very important to our party. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) talked about the impact on defence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) talked about higher education. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) spoke about youth mobility and the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, while my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) talked about the impact on farmers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) gave a very personal reflection on her own journey, for which I am grateful, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) talked about fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) spoke eloquently about barriers to trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) gave a polemic, which I really enjoyed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) made a particularly interesting contribution about health co-operation, for which I thank him.”
Sarah Olney
“I encourage Labour Members to pursue this issue and keep on taking it to their Government—to argue with passion and conviction that they want the UK to be back in the European Union. That is the only thing that will satisfy the petitioners, because that is what they want. As has been rightly said, the UK public are way ahead of the House on this issue; some 60% of them now want the UK to rejoin the European Union. We should look at what they want. If one of the parties—just one—were to say, “We are totally committed to full EU membership,” that would be immensely popular; it would go with the grain of public opinion throughout the United Kingdom.”
Pete Wishart
“The Government must do what is right for the British public and not just run scared of the hon. Member for Clacton and the rest of his quarrelsome rag-bag of little Englanders and cheerleaders for Trump and Putin. We are part of Europe, and I have no doubt that one day we will rejoin the EU and regain our position at its heart, just as Winston Churchill advocated. Until that day, we must work tirelessly towards fostering ever closer co-operation by breaking free of the red lines in which this Government have bound themselves so unnecessarily.” Paul Kohler
“The end of January marked five years since the UK left the EU. Although a majority of people in the UK, and indeed in Wales, voted to leave the EU at that time, the majority do not think it was a good idea any more. Polling shows that 55% of Britons now say that it was wrong for the UK to leave the EU, with just 11% seeing Brexit as more of a success than a failure. Let us also not forget that young people voted decisively to remain.”
Liz Savile-Roberts
“Speaking of the architects of the botched Brexit, where exactly is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? According to Hansard, he has mentioned Brexit just twice since his election in July. Surely, if this Brexit deal was the monumental success that he and others promised, he would be reminding us no end of times. His silence speaks volumes. Even he seems aware that this supposed triumph is best quietly forgotten.”
James MacCleary
I do not think that anyone in this Chamber, or the petitioners, expects the Labour party to lead us back into the EU tomorrow. What we want to hear from this Labour Government is a commitment that that is their objective and that is what they will work towards.
Pete Wishart
“I urge the Government to move away from warm words—at the PPA, we all exchanged warm words about our new relationship—towards action and results. Otherwise, we will be talking about a reset for many decades. We need action from the Government now.”
Wera Hobhouse
“I still wholeheartedly believe in us rejoining the European Union—that is our future—and debates like this are part of that process. People need be under no illusion that this issue is going away; as the petitioners and those supporting them prove, this debate is ongoing in the country. There is also strong support, as the polling evidence shows, that the public believe that we made a mistake.”
Tim Roca
We cannot afford to wait 10 years to address some of the very real challenges that we face as a country. Practical, tangible steps can be taken to help to build a stronger and closer relationship with the EU.
James Naish
“What is it about enriching young people’s lives that frightens this Government so much?“
Liz Savile-Roberts
Several Labour MPs went further than I had expected them to go, whilst sticking to red lines, red lines made largely irrelevant and inappropriate by redneck Trump and his Russian sponsors. We have also received some gratifying replies from Labour MPs.
To absent friends …
Save for a couple of swivel headed Unionist loons talking vacuous BS about fish and democracy, the debate was devoid of the Brexit Culture Carriers. No Nigel, Tice, Johnson, Mogg, Braverman, Duncan Smith, Truss, Sunak, Patel, Redwood, Davis, Failing Grayling, Chope, Coffey, Whittingdale, Francois, Hoey, Steve (beardy wierdy) Hardman Baker, Jenkyns, Fabricate, Leadsom, Gullis, Mordaunt, Hayes and many more. When people tell me that now is not the right time to end Brexit in case we end up in a hokey cokey Brexit, they seem to forget that Brexit has no cheerleaders. Nigel F has mentioned the word just twice since taking up office in his constituency of Washington and adopted the easy lie that Brexit was in fact perfection but it was just executed extremely badly by the hard Brexit cabinet. One would have thought that if Brexit was so good, then Brexiteers would have been lining up in their thousands to extol its virtues at the event. No one came. This speaks volumes. Even the Tory Gammon MP for Fylde said that Brexit had provided many benefits, but was unable to name ANY in his summing up. And the party line offered by Labour MP for Thamesmead was lacking in substance and delivered in such a robotic style that I began to wonder if AI had arrived sooner than expected.
It ain’t over
The motion passed. Sadly that does not mean anything other than the debate was held. If we want anything to happen, we must make it so … So, the job is not finished ….
I was delighted to receive over 30 positive replies from MPs due to our mass mailing of our book Rejoin EU: Reboot Britain to MPs, the work of 60 people, including former Labour MEPs, a KC and subject experts across many fields. This nearly involved my detention in parliament due to taking 30 kg of book in a suitcase for a meeting there !!
We have about 300 Labour MPs / journalists and influencers still to mail with books and are hatching a plan to form a “coalition of the willing and able” to meet with Sir Keir Starmer directly. We will need around £4000 to undertake these tasks (£1500 for books, a meeting in London for 20 people and associated costs). If you can help, please send us some support via WISE, BACS, Go Fund Me etc.
And you can still mail your MP with our letter and a hard copy of the book – get the template here and the book on Amazon. Bulk orders at 60% author discount direct via e-mail at reboot@brexitrage.com
Debate Rejoin NOW
“The EU is a pragmatic project, but at its core it is also an idealistic one. It is a project grounded in ideals, and in the idea that the nations of central Europe should never go to war again. It succeeded in that mission, making it one of the most successful political projects ever in mankind’s history. When we are making the argument for rejoining the European Union, let us use the language of idealism, not just rationalism. Unless we build a case for the UK to rejoin the EU based on idealist language and get people to buy into the ideals on which the European Union was founded, we will not have long-term buy-in to the project among the people we need to convince.”
David Chadwick
“I fear that I am in danger of picking at the scars and wounds referred to by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—a very learned Member—but I must reflect on these past nine years. On 23 June 2016, the people of Scotland voted to remain within the European Union by 62% to 38%. There was a majority for remain in every single one of Scotland’s local authorities. In anyone’s terms, that was decisive, and if the vote were rerun today, I suggest it would be even more decisive.”
