Thoughts on the Great Northern Stop Brexit Conference 8th September 2018

I was fortunate to be able to go along with my fellow staunch anti-Brexit friend Caroline Kenyon to the Great Northern Stop Brexit Conference, planned and facilitated by Leeds for Europe and put on at the very plush Principal Met Hotel, in Leeds Central. I listened to a number of passionate activists, campaigners and political figures talk about the current situation facing the UK, the level of campaigning needed to get the People's Vote referendum campaign on the final Brexit deal to the point where MPs and MEPs from all political parties are willing to openly support it and then the level of campaigning needed to convince voters from across the UK to cast their vote in favour of Remaining in the EU and spearheading the reform programme needed to make the UK and the EU more prosperous, healthier and happier. If People's Vote campaigners want to secure a convincing majority in any future referendum on Brexit, they will need to appeal to voters living in Northern constituencies, both urban and rural. Constituencies in the East Midlands like Mansfield, which voted 70.9% to Leave in 2016, Erewash, which voted 63.3% in 2016, Derbyshire South, which voted 60.4% to Leave in 2016 and my own constituency of Lincoln, which voted 57.3% to Leave in 2016. Best for Britain and HOPE not Hate published a report last month which showed that 112 constituencies would now vote to Remain in the EU if a referendum were to be held. Voters in constituencies like Gedling (56.2% Leave in 2016, 52.4% Remain now) , Broxtowe (52.4% Leave in 2016, 53.3% Remain now), Derby North (53.7% Leave in 2016, 52.0% Remain now), Leicester West (51.7% Leave in 2016, 55.4% Remain now) and Leicester East (53.2% Leave in 2016, 54.3% Remain now) seem to have shifted their view from Leave to Remain. That's great but none of the constituencies I have mentioned before have shifted decisively. 64.0% of Mansfield voters would still choose to Leave the EU, 57.1% of Erewash voters would still put their X in the Leave box, 55.5% of Derbyshire South voters would still say Non and 52.5% of Lincoln voters would still vote Leave. The percentage of Leave voters may have decreased in these areas but there will still be a hefty number of voters who will come out and oppose the Peoples Vote vision for the future of the UK. In Lincolnshire there is currently no constituency that would vote to Remain in the EU. So the question that People's Vote campaigners have to ask is this: how do we convince voters from working class communities, those who are Just-About-Managing, as well as middle class rural mild Eurosceptics to back the premise behind the People's Vote?

Saturday's conference I think attempted in part to address this question. I believe that first of all, campaigners need to be prepared to engage in frank, honest and open dialogue with Leave voters, as well as people who chose not to vote or were too young to vote in the 2016 referendum. I understand the palpable anger that exists: voters in my local ward of Birchwood, in Lincoln are overwhelmingly frustrated at the lack of progress being made by PM May's Tory Government on securing a final Brexit deal and they are equally concerned at the recent plethora of bad news stories which have made it clear what could happen in the event of the UK failing to secure a deal with the EU (the “No Deal” scenario). Two Lower Layer Support Output Areas (LSOA's) in Birchwood in the 2015 Indices of Deprivation were identified as being among the 10% most deprived in England. LSOA 007C is ranked 237 out of 32,844 and LSOA 007A, where I live currently, is ranked 2,397 out of 32,844 LSOA's. Believe me when I say people here do not have an awful lot of disposable income that they would be able to divert to cover a sudden increase in food prices in the shops. If the Tory Govt fail to secure a deal with the EU after March 2019, prices of even basic foodstuffs could be set to increase. A former boss of Waitrose (which I very rarely shop in btw) and former Tory trade minister, Lord Price stated last month that imported fresh food, including fruit and veg (which accounts for around 75% of all fruit and veg consumed) could see the sharpest price rises (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44966961). An anonymous supermarket chairman stated that he thought the UK operating on WTO rules after leaving the EU would lead to tariffs on food products, with imported cheese having a 44% tariff, chicken a 22% tariff and grapes a 20% tariff, which would probably lead to a 10% general price rise (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-no-deal-uk-business-city-trade-eu-leave-a8499621.html).

A young lady who works in one of Birchwood's local hairdressing salons (and does a brilliant job) who is skeptical of the EU told me that she just wants to know whether she'd be able to afford basic food and drink for herself and her partner in a No-Deal scenario. Yes she did blame the EU for lack of progress on the deal. But she also made it clear that she didn't want food prices to rise to a point where her diet may become less varied and she doesn't have enough money to afford a lager or two down her local. I think it's so important that proponents of the People's Vote do not just cite a load of facts and figures at voters as an attempt to force them to “see the light”. Listen to what they have to say and then try to address the key issues that come out of the conversation. I've not met any neighbours or voters who would honestly say they are prepared to pay higher food prices as a result of Brexit, yet I've seen a number of tweets from the supposedly more well-heeled members of our society who would be “more than happy” to pay more for food in exchange for “sovereignty”. I wish those people could take a trip down to their local foodbank and talk with people there, who would include fellow Leave voters, some of whom are working 40-50 hour plus weeks to try and keep themselves and their family members from ending up on the streets and still do not have sufficient funds in place to afford basic food and drink in the last week before payday. Nearly 4 million people have stated they have used foodbanks at some point (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-banks-uk-how-many-people-adults-poverty-a8386811.html). Foodbank volunteers come from a cross-section of society and include EU citizens and I have massive respect for anyone that gives their time freely to keep them going.

There are many Remain and Leave voters who want to change the situation for low-income families, so they do not have to rely on foodbanks or end up destitute. It's a travesty that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) Report found that more than 1.5 million people, including 365,000 children were classed as destitute in 2017 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-banks-uk-how-many-people-adults-poverty-a8386811.html). As we enter an uncertain period, an additional 470,000 people could be living in poverty in 2020/21 as a result of Government decisions to freeze most working-age benefits and tax credits (https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/how-could-brexit-affect-poverty-uk). Under different Brexit scenarios, the JRF also estimates that real wages could fall by between 0.2% and 1.0%, which could lead to an increase in working households in poverty.

I hope that policies can be introduced soon to turn this around and I think they have to include increasing minimum wage rates for all workers to be in line with National Living Wage rates, reducing or banning zero-hours contracts, ending the freeze on working-age benefits and tax credits and ensuring that those who cannot work have the money they need to maintain a comfortable standard of living, including scrapping the draconian Bedroom Tax.

Femi Oluwole, the Co-Founder of the phenomenal campaign group, Our Future, Our Choice, made up of young people who voted Remain and Leave in the 2016 referendum and young people who were too young to vote, really struck a chord with me. I felt he and his team genuinely care about listening to the concerns of Leave voters, especially those that live in the top 10% most deprived areas of the UK. He talked about the residents of Sunderland that he met during his campaigning with warmth and I hope that attendees at the conference listened to him when he said “We need to be angry for Brexit voters, not at them”.

Tone matters a great deal in political campaigning, especially when trying to explore the issue of immigration. Figures compiled by the Migrant Observatory, based at the University of Oxford find that 53% of respondents want to see migration levels reduce: only 13% favour an increase in levels (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/). Personally I am not adverse to keeping Freedom of Movement and I greatly appreciate the overwhelmingly positive contributions that people from the EU have made to Lincoln and Lincolnshire. Our universities- the University of Lincoln and Bishop Grosseteste University would not be as popular with students without them being able to recruit highly qualified, experienced and passionate staff from the EU. Our hospitals and GP surgeries and care homes would be understaffed without people from the EU choosing to come to Lincolnshire and make it their home. We owe a debt of gratitude to the tens of thousands of seasonal migrant workers who have helped to pick and manufacture our excellent Lincolnshire produce (everything from Asparagus and Rapeseed Oil to Lincolnshire Sausages). I believe the majority of Lincolnshire residents and voters, whether they voted to Remain or Leave the EU in 2016 also appreciate the contributions that have been made economically and socially.

The problem comes when the conversation turns to two immigration topic subareas which are a) a perceived lack of high-quality, highly paid job opportunities for British-born residents and b) the strain placed on existing public services and infrastructure as a result of “mass” migration. People's Vote campaigners need to be able to proffer a nuanced opinion on one or both of these in order to demonstrate that they are comfortable with discussing the topic openly and frankly. We need to rebut the charge made by far-right Eurosceptics that we are unwilling to discuss such “difficult” topics. It starts by recognising that more rural businesses in particular, have to, wherever possible, invest in creating and promoting more intermediate, advanced and degree level apprenticeship opportunities for local residents who are over the age of 25, ensuring they receive the knowledge and skills training needed to sustain that role going forward. Promotion of opportunities needs to be done in an innovative way and include use of social media platforms. I also believe that the Government needs to ringfence funding for apprenticeships for over 25s to support businesses willing to create opportunities. Such apprenticeships should be available to UK based residents first, before being advertised abroad. Apprenticeship pay rates may need to be revised to be as close to the Government's National Living Wage as possible.

To rebut the idea that migrants should be the ones who are blamed for strains on public services and housing and transport infrastructure, I think it's essential to bear in mind that decisions made by the Government since 2010 have contributed to pressures on local services. Local authorities have seen their grants cut by 49.1% in real terms between the financial years 2010-11 and 2017-18. The Migrant Impact Fund, introduced by Labour to help increase capacity in local public services in areas which had seen a dramatic increase in the number of migrants, such as Boston, was scrapped in 2010. The Tories then introduced a Controlling Migration Fund in 2016, providing £100m to local authorities over 4 years. £19m of this was released back in June and included £1.75m to help refugees enter the workplace and £1.1m to help victims of modern slavery access local services after leaving central-government funded support (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/19-million-funding-for-councils-to-boost-integration). Great projects but still not enough money to reverse local authority cuts. Not when house building levels seem to not be keeping up with general level of demand, there are just not enough council houses for families who are classed as being in greatest need (there are consistently over 1 million households on local authority waiting lists), local hospital services are being scaled back (Grantham's A&E service used to be 24 hours but this was reduced by closing overnight due to difficulty in recruiting specialist staff). My neighbours feel fed up of having to wait 1 week, 2 weeks or more in some cases to book an initial GP appointment and unfortunately, some blame this wait on an increase in residents who are EU citizens, rather than recognising demand for GP services more generally is rising. A recent survey of 760,000 paients found that 27.9% had found it difficult to get an appointment, up from 18.6% in 2012 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/09/doubling-long-waits-see-gp-record-pressures-ae-revealed/) Data regarding A&E attendances also demonstrates the amount of pressure our NHS is under: figures from July show that the total number of attendances was 2.17m, the highest figure ever recorded. The recent decision to close the Lincoln Walk-In-Centre has led to increase pressures on A&E services in the county and happened as a result of lack of additional funding being available to local NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups, against the wishes of local residents (http://www.healthwatchlincolnshire.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/GPappointmentreportfinal-2.pdf). Such pressures are not the fault of migrants, they are partly the fault of the Government and they should take more responsibility for their actions.

Some academics have argued that concerns over immigration cannot be rebutted simply by recourse to economic arguments alone. Residents of Boston for example may be happy to hear about intended increases in funding to reduce pressure on public services and infrastructure post a People's Vote but may still be concerned about “an influx” of migrants coming into their area. Overall attitudes towards immigration have softened but there are still voters who will openly differentiate between accepting highly skilled, English speaking migrants and low-skilled, non English speaking (or those with a low standard of English) migrants. Heath and Richards, in their 2018 research, found that British people attach high importance to skills, but lower importance to skin colour and religion (https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/). This may indicate that talking more about what EU migrants are doing to make their chosen constituency/local area better may help to change opinion as it demonstrates a willingness to integrate and appreciate perceived British cultural traditions. I think grassroots social action projects involving Remain and Leave voters and EU citizens should continue to be set up in constituencies across the North and could help to grind down hardened attitudes.

I feel proud of being a Lincolnite and proud of being a Yellowbelly (a resident of Lincolnshire for anyone unfamiliar with our dialect) in addition to being the child of an extremely hard-working Norwegian Citizen. I don't believe that we owe the success of our agricultural industry or any industry to membership of the EU alone but I do feel that we have benefitted from it. Greater Lincolnshire as a whole has benefited from being allocated £41m of EU funding in the 2014-20 period. Euromove Lincs found that the Education and Skills Funding Agency received £12.9m for Lincolnshire and Lincolnshire County Council received £6.3m (https://www.euromovelincs.org.uk/lincolnshire_benefits_from_41m_of_eu_funding) which has helped local businesses to expand their capacity (e.g. through the Lincolnshire Business Digital Growth Programme). 1,397 farmers based in the Lincoln area benefited from £53,480,052 of funding from the EU (https://www.myeu.uk/#/area/LN) in 2017 alone and the EU has invested £18,017,536 in 64 research projects! Most residents I have spoken to had no idea that the EU had invested such large amounts in local businesses and whilst I'm not sure it would change people's minds decisively, it does help to change the overarching narrative of opinion on the EU, from that of grabbing money from British taxpayers to one where the EU invests in skills programmes and businesses to try and help improve job opportunities for local residents. Please check out the My.EU website which has more information on projects and organisations in your local area that have been funded by the EU: https://www.myeu.uk!

The importance of talking about the constitutional future for constituencies and counties following a People's Vote was made clear by numerous speakers at the Great Northern Stop Brexit Conference, including the impressive Diana Wallis, who talked about the need for a future Government following the People's Vote to explore further devolution of powers as well as ensuring that more funding was provided to increase housing stock (social and otherwise) in areas where demand is high. Constitutional Reform is certainly a topic area of increasing interest. When I think of “sovereignty” I find it to be a very abstract concept and yet I am very supportive of seeing more tax-raising powers and control over education and health policy being devolved to Lincolnshire. There's a question as to whether devolution should be to the Greater Lincolnshire area or just to the current districts represented by Lincolnshire County Council Councillors. A deal had been proposed in 2016 but was voted down by the County Council over concerns about the bureaucracy surrounding additional powers the elected mayor would have accrued but a plan may be revisited soon (https://lincolnshirereporter.co.uk/2018/05/greater-lincolnshire-devolution-deal-could-be-revisited/).

Voters in Lincoln I have spoken to have also expressed a desire for changes to the House of Lords. One very outspoken retired small businessman told me that we need a democratically elected Senate, with hereditary peers and Bishops losing their entitlement to seats and other Peers choosing to stand in elections for a constituency seat in that Senate. Another person who was very much a Brexiteer Tory said that he only wanted to see numbers of seats available in the House of Lords reduced and that as the UK is still a Christian country, the Bishops and existing hereditary peers should retain their seats. They both agree the system needs to change but are clearly split on how such change should be enacted. The Electoral Reform Society believes the key to reform is to go down the full election route but they would like to see a proportional system used, such as the Single Transferable Vote (find out more about it here: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/single-transferable-vote/) which means that the strength of each party would match the strength of feeling of voters and they can choose which party candidates or independents (crossbenchers in the House of Lords) they want to vote for to represent their constituency/local area. The details of course need to be worked out but it certainly sounds more democratic than the system we have now. It would truly demonstrate a practical application of the “Take Back Control” spirit embued in many people across the UK.

The vote to Leave the EU was partly a vote to rile up the Political Establishment; a vote designed to force MPs to take the concerns of ordinary voters more seriously and to fashion a vision for the UK that will benefit the many, not the few. Thus far, ardent Brexiteers in Government and Brexiteers within other parties, as well as those MPs who favour a Remain and Reform approach, have failed to adequately outline a clear, progressive vision for life for UK residents in a post-Brexit scenario. Whilst I am now slightly more confident that there is a possibility of Corbyn choosing to recommend to Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) that the party backs a People's Vote as official policy and also more confident there could be a potential shift in PM May's position should no deal be agreed in principle by December, I am also conscious of the need to harness the amazing energy of grassroots campaigners to enact positive social change in local communities regardless of the eventual outcome politically. There are friends, neighbours and strangers who would appreciate support now, more than ever. Our country needs a positive, progressive and inclusive vision, which encourages our residents, wherever they have come from and whether they are a British citizen or not to adopt an internationalist, outward looking outlook. We need policies that unashamedly focus on improving the standard and quality of life. It's not about increasing handouts or disenfranchising Leave voters, it's about giving a helping hand to communities to encourage sustainable, real change. It has to be grassroots led. As the fabulous Natalie Bennett, Sheffield Central candidate and former leader of the Green Party said at the conference: “Politics is something you do, not (something) done to you”.

For me, that means continuing to speak out about levels of inequality prevalent in our society. It means helping to empower local people from different socio-economic backgrounds to speak about their own life experiences and work together to explore possible social action they can take to improve quality of life for themselves and others. I think we all need to use whatever platforms we can to promote and celebrate the diverse nature of our local communities, including celebrating contributions made by people from around the world. We should choose strength in hope together. Hope for a prosperous, healthier and happier future. Remaining in the EU can be one part of helping to shape that future but not the only policy decision that can make a difference.