David Bowskill

When Daisy Cooper explains the Freedom of Movement with the EU rule that "If people come to this country and do not get a job in 3 months, they can be kicked out" Zia Yusuf interrupts mocking the idea that the British government would kick anyone out - that doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist, it was Zia Yusuf former party, the Conservatives, who chose not to apply the rule Daisy Cooper, "Since Brexit there was the Boris wave of people coming here and settling here, which is very different to Freedom of Movement where people went in and out of countries depending where jobs and work are" "And because of the botched Brexit deal, we scrapped the mechanism of returning asylum seekers to the first EU country they arrived in" "The EU has just agreed a migration pact for asylum seekers, at the moment, we're not part of it" "The small boats crisis only started in 2016" Fiona Bruce then jumps in to dismiss the comment, "Not everybody will agree with you on that Daisy" My view: The 2016 referendum was not a perfect, settled expression of the country’s will for all time. It was a campaign marked by claims that have since been challenged, and a decision made before the public could see the practical costs of leaving. Now we have years of evidence: new barriers for businesses, weaker economic performance and a more uncertain security landscape. People are entitled to weigh what they were told against what has actually happened. There is nothing undemocratic about continuing to make the case for change. Those who opposed closer European integration did not abandon their arguments after earlier votes; they kept campaigning because they believed the decision was wrong. The same right belongs to people who now believe Brexit has damaged the country. That does not mean pretending the 2016 vote never happened. It means recognising that democracy is an ongoing conversation, and that voters can reconsider their choices when circumstances and evidence have changed. And Fiona Bruce’s questioning keeps revealing a clear instinct: whenever the case for closer ties with Europe is made, she seems quick to cast doubt on it—as though Brexit is beyond challenge and any attempt to repair its damage must be treated with suspicion. She may frame that as neutral scrutiny, but she rarely applies the same scepticism to the promises made by Brexit supporters. It comes across less as impartial examination than as a defence of the Brexit status quo. Burnham opening up this debate is a welcome step. Britain should be able to discuss closer ties with Europe on their merits: whether they can help rebuild growth, strengthen our security and give the country more influence in a world that has become far less predictable.