
Labour will never be forgiven for this appalling Brexit betrayal
The moment remains indelibly etched in my mind, as vivid now as it was then. Those early hours of June 24, 2016 – the afterglow of the referendum still clinging to the air like mist. In Fareham, our Vote Leave team were weary, elated, and yet braced for disappointment. Nigel Farage had already hinted at defeat as the polls closed. The machine, after all, was colossal: the Treasury, the Bank of England, Brussels, Barack Obama – all aligned, all seemingly convinced that Project Fear would prevail.
But we had stood for something more enduring than polls or punditry: for sovereignty, for the conviction that a people – any people – deserve to govern themselves. Yes, we were the underdogs but we fought for the notion that borders matter, that culture counts, that laws passed in London carry greater legitimacy than diktats from Strasbourg. We had made the case for Britain – and braced ourselves for noble defeat.
Then came Sunderland.
A cheer rose from outside the hall. We were told: 61 per cent Leave. Disbelief. A second, then a third confirmation. Could it be? The industrial North, battered and patronised for decades, had defied every expert, every threat, and roared with unambiguous pride: Leave.
There was something profoundly British about it. Not just in the scepticism of authority, but in the quiet dignity of millions who had had enough – enough of being sneered at, of being told their country was a relic, their instincts xenophobic. The people had chosen freedom. And Fareham, too, my own community had joined them, casting aside the narrative of inevitable Remain.
I remember driving back to the Vote Leave HQ at 4am as the first rays of a new dawn broke across the Hampshire skies. It wasn't just meteorological. It was a moment of national rebirth.
And now – nine years on – what are we to make of it?
The Labour Government, fronted by Keir Starmer but puppeteered by a familiar Europhile chorus, appears poised to commit the most far-reaching Brexit betrayal yet. One must admire the brazenness. These are people who voted against Brexit, campaigned for a second referendum, and now, with the cloak of office draped over their shoulders, intend to smuggle Britain back into Europe's orbit – quietly, incrementally, and with a lawyer's precision.
First, the so-called Youth Mobility Scheme. Harmless sounding – who could object to young people travelling? But beneath the euphemism lies the quiet reintroduction of free movement. At a time when net migration is at historic highs, when the public is palpably crying out for control, Labour proposes to open the doors even wider.
Then there's fishing. That sacred emblem of island sovereignty – a living, breathing industry left to rot under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy. Our fishermen, such as those who fish for Bass in The Solent from my constituency, had waited patiently, for justice. Instead, up to 75 per cent of our waters continue to be plundered by EU vessels. And there is every sign that Starmer will sign away even that thin veneer of regained control.
Most gravely, we hear whispers – credible ones – of dynamic alignment: the dull phrase that masks a profound truth. That Britain would once again become a rule-taker, our regulations shaped not by Parliament but by Brussels. And with it, the European Court of Justice waiting in the wings to resume its supremacy.
All of it will be spun, of course. Clever soundbites: 'e-gates for British travellers', 'restoring relationships', 'back at the table'. But no phrase, however slick, can mask what this is: a surrender of sovereignty dressed in the garb of diplomacy.
The real question is not what Starmer does now. It is how long he thinks the British people will tolerate it. For what 2016 revealed was not just a vote to leave the European Union – it was a vote of confidence in themselves. And once a people have tasted freedom, they do not forget. Nor do they forgive easily.
The British public may be patient. But they are not fools. And they do not take kindly to being betrayed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I live in a UK beauty spot threatened by Labour's planning bill. It could become a disaster zone
The UK needs houses. The UK needs open spaces, and wilderness. The Labour government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which cleared its second reading in the House of Commons with a majority of 256 votes, is only interested in the former. At the end of 2024, Keir Starmer declared that homes must have a higher priority than nature and the environment, as ministers outlined reforms that could allow more building on England's green belt. Housing minister Angela Rayner backed him, asserting that 'we can't have a situation where a newt is more protected than people who desperately need housing'. The populist punditry that would once have been anathema to leaders and politicians in general is designed to detract from the dire consequences if the bill is passed. Lawyers, environmental charities – including the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts – and activists have assessed that more than 5,000 of England's most vulnerable protected natural habitats are at risk of being destroyed by development thanks to Labour's new planning bill, which has been dubbed a 'licence to kill'. These would include many of the UK's favourite holiday destinations, such as areas that fall under designations like Sites of Special Scientific Interest, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, and much-loved nature-rich parts of National Parks and National Landscapes (formerly AONBs), like the New Forest and the Forest of Bowland. As I live in the Forest of Bowland, I have a stake in this debate. I live in a ribbon of farmland that lies between the Forest of Bowland proper and Pendle Hill, which is part of the same protected National Landscape. South of here is East Lancashire, one of the most densely populated parts of the UK. For residents of Burnley, Blackburn and Accrington, Bowland is the second nearest large green space, after the West Pennine Moors. But Bowland is different. As the 'Forest' in its name suggests it is a former hunting chase, and while there are some pockets of grouse moor management that still rile most ordinary residents and visitors, swathes of the park are open country, ideal for hiking, cycling and family picnics. For decades, access was complicated here, with grouse butts and private lands blocking walkers. Just two decades ago, much of Bowland was opened up to walkers for the first time when the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gave general right of access to the public to 'access land' for the purposes of open-air recreation on foot. People can walk, run and – where permitted – ride bikes wherever there are paths. To be candid, Bowland doesn't have Instagram-friendly summits to bag or famous poets' houses to swoon over. It doesn't attract countless car-tourers or caravan-users. It is absolutely nothing like the Lake District or nearby Yorkshire Dales. Many of its upland areas are boggy and only the very well-acquainted would want to negotiate the steep-sided valleys or gully-riven, heather-clad slopes. But the relatively low visitor numbers are great for nature. A sizeable central section of the 300-square-mile National Landscape is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest because of the habitats it helps to protect and its internationally important bird populations. One of these is the merlin, the UK's smallest bird of prey (it's only about the size of a thrush). On my last visit I saw one at a distance, seated – ironically – on a grouse butt. During the same half-day visit I also spotted meadow pipits, curlews, skylarks, a stonechat, a greylag goose, and nesting peregrines. The most surprising sighting was a couple of ring ouzels – a red-listed species (that is, 'of high conservation concern') and members of the thrush family that dwells on the uplands. The absolute high point was the bird for which Bowland had become famous: the hen harrier. At first I saw males and females skimming across the top of the heather. This was satisfying enough; hen harriers are among the most persecuted birds in the country. Then I was treated to a sky dance, which is when a male hen harrier performs extraordinary aerial stunts to show off to females, to warn off rival males, or – perhaps – just for fun. The one I saw did Red Arrows-style vertical leaps, back flips, twists and turns, against a clear blue sky. It was one of those moments in nature, all of five minutes, that felt life-enhancing and deeply moving. Does any of this matter as much as the desperate housing situation? Is wildlife really as important as new estates? Is it not time rural England accepted that cities can't accommodate all the new houses and flats? Would Bowland not in fact benefit from development? Am I trying to promote tourism and leisure – arguably luxuries for only some members of society – and ignoring the needs of millions of people? The honest answers to all these questions is clear to anyone who lives in places like the Forest of Bowland. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted nations on earth. How often do we hear now the distressing news that butterflies are disappearing, that once familiar birds have become near-extinct, that hedgehogs are on the same path already taken by red squirrels? Even my greenish patch within the greater Bowland area is, frankly, a classic farm-ageddon of dry-stone wall-to-wall sheep fields, with very limited birdlife and a worrying lack of insect life. The flora that lies outside the sheep-mowed areas is not particularly diverse. The trees are, as often as not, plantations of conifers. This is precisely why we need to protect, at all costs, those areas where species thrive or, at least, have a chance to revive. Bowland is the last place to reimagine how England should reside in the coming decades. As well as being an important, if imperfect, space for nature – as outlined above – it has risible road connections, no railways passing through it, and only a couple of bus services that run infrequently and never after dark. The whole area is poorly supplied with the essential, basic amenities communities need to thrive, from schools and hospitals to theatres and cinemas to local shops and places to eat and drink. Dropping blocks of beige housing – this area seems to specialise in hideous and overpriced executive homes – would at best attract some retirees. Alternatively, if truly affordable housing were built in any useful quantities, the Government would have to seriously consider a new town project of some kind. The nearest urban areas – Preston, Blackburn, Lancaster – currently have deep-set housing, social and transport problems of their own. They all take forever to reach on the winding country lanes that link, eventually, to the jammed and dangerous A59 – the one major trunk road that tears through the Ribble Valley in a blaze of boy-racers, trundling tractors and pelotons of unhappy cyclists. Try this experiment in any of the 5,000-plus precious areas and the results will be the same. The tourism and leisure, exercise and inspiration that ordinary people get from being close to birdsong and surrounded by unsullied, unpeopled emptiness will be sacrificed to cover up the deep tragedy of 40 years (and counting) or poor planning by all shades of government, national and local. Much of British wildlife is threatened. Nightingales, badgers, dormice, otters, butterflies, dragonflies, kingfishers, tufted ducks and egrets are just some of the beautiful creatures that the extant, already damaged natural areas help to conserve. If we wipe these out, and destroy the places they inhabit, what is there for people to do, to see, to admire? The wealthy will go overseas, adding air miles. The rest of us will have nowhere to stretch our legs or lungs. Bowland is no paradise, no idyll. But Labour's short-sighted and unscientific scheme to fill the hills and vales with houses, in the face of criticism from experts from many camps, will turn it into a disaster zone.


The Sun
20 minutes ago
- The Sun
Rangers appoint Russell Martin as manager to end long search for new boss as Ibrox revolution continues
RANGERS have appointed former Southampton boss Russell Martin as their new manager. The 39-year-old has ended months of speculation about the vacancy by accepting the job at Ibrox. 3 3 3 SunSport were first to tell you back on February 22 - the day Philippe Clement was sacked - that Martin was a serious contender. Since then a number of names were linked with the position, including former Real Madrid assistant Davide Ancelotti and ex-Rangers boss Steven Gerrard. But it is ex-Light Blues defender Martin who has made the most convincing pitch to the new American owners at Ibrox to land the job. His name never seemed to go away even despite links with Leicester City. We told you at the start of last week that Martin remained a serious contender and was set for talks to make a fresh pitch for the position. Ancelotti, son of legendary father Carlo, made it clear that Rangers was his preferred choice but a decision had to be made quickly. That was before it was announced that the new US consortium, chairman Andrew Cavenagh and 49ers Enterprises, would take control of the club last Friday. New sporting director Kevin Thelwell said only on Monday how Rangers are closing in on a new manager. And Martin who had a loan spell at Ibrox seven years ago has emerged from the pack of candidates. He guided Southampton into the Premier League with a play-off win over Leeds United at Wembley a year ago. But the Saints dropped straight back down after failing to recover from a disastrous start with one win in 16 games, which cost Martin his job. More to follow...


Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
I'm a stay-at-home mum but my husband pays me for housework - I charge him £800 a month for laundry
A woman has claimed she bills her husband a monthly rate to be a stay-at-home mother. The British mother-of-two, known as @thewoodys6 on TikTok, said she charges her partner £800 a month for doing the laundry, £10 a day for mopping the floors and £85 for dusting. For home-cooked meals, she claimed she expects to be paid £300 a month, however her husband can opt for microwaved meals at a reduced cost. She also claimed she charges £20 for changing their super king-sized bed sheets because it's 'exhausting', and £250 for fuel for her car so she can treat herself to 'brunch'. In the clip, which racked up 250,000 views, she added: 'I charge him £400 for my luxuries, so when I need to get my hair and nails done, or any little bits that I see in the shop that I need to pick up. 'I also charge him an additional £150 to just do the children's cooking, but don't tell him I basically just feed the children chicken and chips.' Many rushed to the comments to leave their own thoughts on the arrangement, with some claiming they would want a 'divorce' if their wife charged for chores. One unimpressed person said: 'I would divorce you in an instant. Definitely not value for money.' Another added: 'You'd get dumped.' Someone else added: 'You charge him? Are you for real?' A fourth added: 'Surely this isn't serious. You're a mother, they are your kids and your house, why does he have to pay you.' Another said: 'Now if I was your husband I would charge you rent of around £2,000 a month for putting a roof over your head.' However, many others got the sarcasm in the satire TikTok clip, with several people playing along in the comments. One person wrote: '£400 p/m for hair and bits in the shop that's more than reasonable. Love how many people are going mad at a TikTok.' Another quipped: 'What does he do for a living? He has a keeper with you, loving the satire.' Someone else added: 'I love this? Can we start charging the kids also? Like take their pocket money back.' Another joked: 'Can't wait to see my husband's face when I send him an invoice.' It comes after a fed-up wife gave her husband the option to either pay her to do housework or for him to pick up the slack. The married couple hired a cleaner but the husband thought it was a 'waste of money'. They had agreed previously that he and the kids 'don't do a great job keeping the house clean and tidy' while she was at work. To compromise she gave him two options, but he didn't like either and left the conversation upset claiming she's being 'financially manipulative'. The mother is a steamfitter earning $100 an hour - more than what her husband makes as a teacher - and often works 13-hour days. 'I think if he and the kids actually did what they are supposed to do when I'm away none of this would be an issue,' she wrote on Reddit. 'My husband is upset because I decided to pay for a cleaning lady... I hated coming home to a mess. It caused a few fights because it was like they expected me to come home and clean up after them,' she began. 'Having her (the cleaner) is fantastic. I come home to a clean house and I am happier. My kids have more time to study and do extracurriculars. They still have chores and they are still expected to clean up after themselves.' The husband asked to 'cut back' on the cleaning service when his wife is home and that she should be 'doing more housework'. 'He thinks that we are wasting money. I said that I work 14 days in a row and that those are 13-hour days. Yes it is mostly paperwork but his job as a teacher isn't much more physically challenging,' she continued. Many rushed to the comments to leave their own thoughts on the arrangement with some claiming they would want a 'divorce' if their wife charged for chores 'I said that I could offer him two options. If he wanted we could completely get rid of the service and him and the kids could make sure the house was in good shape when I got home. Or he could pay me my hourly rate to do extra housework when I am on my days of.' The husband was 'upset' and the wife turned to Reddit for advice on what to do. Fellow Redditors erupted in anger in the comments with many dissing the husband for his behaviour. 'A relationship is meant to go both ways. Your husband sounds like he wants you to do all the work without putting effort in himself. Poor form,' one wrote. A second claimed: 'This is definitely about control more than it is about cutting costs.' 'It's so disgusting how he loves to benefit off it, but tried to make sure the wife doesn't get any breaks,' someone else said. Another had further questions and said: 'Does he believe that cleaning is gender related and that is what he is teaching his children and his students? I would have a lot of questions on this one.' Someone else added: 'Um he is home he can clean. The adult who is home more cleans more it's quite simple. 'Honestly you shouldn't even have to hire a maid he should have taken that duty upon him. Instead its like he wants the old rules where wife cleans. We are past that s*** its 2024.'