Beth Rigby, "All of the people in the Makerfield focus group voted to Leave the EU. When Burnham said it at conference I thought: Brexit betrayal. Those Leave voting parts of the country won't like this." "But you ask those people and they don't seem to mind (closer ties with the EU" Brexiter 1, "I voted to leave.. Much younger then.. Didn't understand it.. Dad told me to vote for Leave.. It's harder now.. Maybe it would be better if we went back" Brexiter 2, "Everything seemed better when we were in Europe, it just did" Brexiter 3, "I think we were over-promised things.. I think we would be much better as part of an EU.. Than on our own" Brexiter 4 says she would vote the same way because she thinks we would have to adopt the Euro - currently six EU countries do not use the Euro My view: The Makerfield focus group tells you how much the Brexit argument has changed. These were all Leave voters. Now one says she didn’t understand what she was voting for; others say life in the EU felt better, that they were promised too much, and that Britain might be better off as a member again. That doesn’t mean every one of them would vote to rejoin. It does show that the old assumption—that Leave voters would always reject closer ties with Europe—is wearing thin. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage helped persuade people that Brexit would deliver easy gains, without being honest about the trade-offs or what leaving would mean in practice. The euro objection shows how those scare stories still shape the debate. - Six EU countries currently don’t use the euro and the UK had an opt-out when it was a member. What this shows is the need for clear information, not deception, half-truths and outright lies, shaping the conversation. Because when people are given clear accurate facts, the majority of them do not buy into populist rhetoric, so much of which is based on hate and division.

2026: David Frost criticises Labour for believing the 'propaganda' that Brexit has shrunk GDP 4-8% 2015: David Frost says being in the EU has raised GDP 5-8% My view: David Frost is a striking example of ideology being put ahead of reality—and of how that can pay off in politics. His hard-Brexit stance helped propel him into the role of chief Brexit negotiator and, ultimately, a seat in the House of Lords. In 2015, Frost argued that EU membership had lifted UK GDP by “five, six, seven, eight per cent” through the single market. Now he dismisses as “propaganda” the claim that Brexit has cost the UK 4–8% of GDP. The estimates aren’t identical: one concerns the benefit of single-market membership, the other the cost of leaving. But the contradiction is hard to miss. Frost once used a large GDP estimate to make the case for the EU; now, when estimates point to Brexit’s economic damage, he waves them away as propaganda. That isn’t a serious engagement with the evidence. It’s an ideological position being defended at any cost. And Frost is hardly alone. Too many politicians and public figures have chosen the career advantage of repeating a convenient line over the harder duty of telling the truth about what is best for the country. When people are rewarded for helping to damage the nation they serve, that is a profound failure of democratic accountability.

Brexit voter in Makerfield tells Beth Rigby, "Everything seemed better when we were in the European Union. Boris Johnson just convinced everyone that we would be so much better off, didn't he" Another says he didn't make the right choice to vote for Brexit because Brexit ended, "The freedom of movement, the freedom of travel" My view: Johnson helped sell Brexit as a painless route to prosperity, then chose a version that put new barriers between British firms and their biggest nearby market. When the trade-offs became unavoidable, he blamed others rather than own the consequences. Farage helped turn grievance into a political movement, but campaigning for a rupture is easier than taking responsibility for its aftermath. He could claim victory, leave others to manage the fallout and return whenever there was another grievance to exploit. That is the populist trick: make a complicated choice sound effortless, dismiss anyone describing the costs as an enemy, then blame someone else when those costs arrive. The people who believed the promises deserve honesty now. The politicians who made them owe the country an accounting. And if Brexit voters in Makerfield have changed their minds, they are far from alone. YouGov’s latest polling found 59% support for rejoining the EU, against 32% opposed. With Britain needing stronger growth and more opportunities, the case for restoring closer ties—and the freedom to live, work and study across Europe—is stronger than ever. #RejoinEU

George Monbiot explains why the UK should rejoin the EU, "There's a reason why Russia tried to intervene in the Brexit vote, they knew that it would harm the UK and the EU if we left" "They were very clear about that and boy have they been proved right" "It has damaged our economic life, our social and cultural life" "Wales alone has lost £1 billion net in regional and social funding which it would have received from the EU" "And it has greatly weakened the opportunities particularly for young people, to work abroad, live abroad, to have the freedoms we had before" "We could rejoin the Customs Union, or the Single Market, but if we did that alone we would be rule takers, we have to accept whatever the EU handed down because we would not be at the table negotiating and making decisions alongside other nations" "As an audience member pointed out, yes the EU is changing. But that's not a reason not to rejoin, but that's a reason to be there in case it changes into a direction we don't like. We can help it be the kind of EU that we want it to be" "I don't think there's any option but to rejoin fully" My view: Brexit was sold as a way to take back control. In practice, it has often meant giving up influence over decisions that still affect us. Our businesses have to navigate rules shaped in Brussels, but Britain has no vote in setting them. That is not meaningful sovereignty; it is distance from the table. Rejoining would give the UK a voice in the institutions where shared rules are debated and agreed. It would also restore a closer, more predictable relationship with our largest nearby market, making it easier for businesses to trade, invest and plan. Those gains would not erase every problem facing the country, but they would remove barriers we chose to put in our own way. The case is about more than trade. It is about making it easier for people to study, work and build lives across Europe; cooperating on research, energy, climate and security; and giving communities and regions access to shared opportunities. These are practical freedoms and partnerships that matter in people’s everyday lives. A halfway arrangement could reduce some friction, but it would leave Britain following many common rules without full representation in shaping them. If the UK wants influence over the direction of European cooperation, membership is the route that provides it. Rejoining would not mean surrendering every national choice; it would mean choosing to make some decisions together, with a seat, a vote and the ability to argue for the outcome we want. The question is not whether the EU is perfect. It is whether Britain is better placed to shape its future from within, alongside its neighbours, or to stand outside while decisions with consequences for us are made without us. After the experience of Brexit, there is a strong case for choosing influence, cooperation and closer ties again. And since Britain left, no other EU member state has followed it out. Instead, the Union has grown to 27 members, while 10 aspiring members are currently in the accession process. That does not prove the EU is perfect or that membership suits every country. But it does show that countries see real value in joining: access to a huge shared market, stronger economic links and greater stability. European Commission They are not signing up because the EU has no problems; they are choosing to take part in a shared project that can bring investment, opportunity and a stronger voice in decisions affecting their future. If countries across Europe are working to join, Britain should ask why it chose to walk away, and whether standing outside has made us better placed to shape what comes next.