Ex-Remain campaign chief vows to leave Britain if Nigel Farage becomes PM
Lord Rose, the former M&S chief who chaired Britain Stronger in Europe during the Brexit struggle, laid down a marker amid the Reform surge.
Polls have shown Mr Farage's party well ahead of Labour and the Tories since its storming performance in local elections on May 1.
Keir Starmer has been scrambling to find a way of clawing back ground, unveiling a crackdown on immigration.
Today the PM visited Albania trumpeting his desire to strike a deal for an overseas 'returns hub' where failed asylum seekers could be processed. However, embarrassingly counterpart Edi Rama immediately ruled out having one in Albania.
Appearing on ITV 's Peston programme, Lord Rose was reminded that he previously promised to leave Britain if Mr Farage became Tory leader.
Asked what he would do if the Reform leader ended up in Downing Street, the peer said: 'I will definitely leave the country.
'He won't become Prime Minister, we hope. But if you were sitting there looking at the danger signs - which is what the Prime Minister's done this week - you'd be taking action.
'I'm fascinated to see what the parties are going to come up with.'
There is a long history of prominent figures vowing to emigrate in the event of a political outcome they do not like.
Magician Paul Daniels notoriously threatened a disappearing act if Tony Blair won the 1997 election, although he later claimed his comments were misrepresented.
Others have made good on departing for other countries. Charlie Mullins, millionaire founder of Pimlico Plumbers, moved to Spain complaining that Labour was wasting public money.
He told MailOnline in January: 'The real reason is not what they are charging but what they are doing with the money. I'd be more than happy to help the NHS and pensioners but I'm not prepared to help people who don't contribute.'
A number of US celebrities said they would leave America if Donald Trump became president.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer hits back at ‘rattled' accusation over Labour MP suspensions
Sir Keir Starmer rejected comparisons to Sir Tony Blair when grilled over the suspension of Labour MPs due to their opposition of welfare cuts. Sky News' Beth Rigby recalled how 47 MPs voted against the former Labour prime minister's welfare plans in 1997, but none had the whip removed. It comes after the party suspended Brian Leishman, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Chris Hinchcliff, and Rachael Maskell on Wednesday after they led a backbench rebellion over planned welfare cuts. When asked why he was "so rattled" by the rebellion, the PM replied: "I'm determined that we will change this country for the better for millions of working people, and I'm not going to be deflected from that. "Everyone was elected as a Labour MP on the manifesto of change, and everybody needs to deliver as a Labour government."
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
Grappling with economic difficulties including rising prices at a time of accelerated social change and growing concerns about immigration, Harold Wilson's Labour government introduced legislation to lower the voting age. The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
German passport e-gates won't change the reality: Brexit has been a disaster for British travellers
Great barrier grief: that is what the UK government promises to end, at least for British travellers to Germany. 'Millions of UK travellers to Germany will be able to use e-gates in the future thanks to a new agreement made between prime minister Keir Starmer and German chancellor Friedrich Merz today,' the Cabinet Office says. 'Germany will roll out the first phase of e-gates access for UK travellers by the end of August, starting with frequent travellers such as Brits with family in Germany or who travel regularly for business.' I have asked the Cabinet Office how this will work: how do the e-gates (or the staff in charge) know whether I have family in Germany? In the absence of a a cousin in Cologne or a daughter in Dresden, might I squeak in as a regular business traveller; I have also asked how frequently must I visit to qualify? In any event, once through the e-gates a smiling German official will need to stamp my passport– in accordance with what the UK demanded when leaving the European Union. Boris Johnson 's fearless negotiators insisted that we would become 'third-country nationals' not required to obtain a visa. Brussels capitulated to our wish to spend hours waiting in queues; to discover that rules on passports validity meant thousands would be turned away from planes; and to have our documents minutely examined to ensure we have not spent more than 90 days in the past 180 days within the Schengen area. Our illustrious status is shared with many other citizens, from East Timor to El Salvador. But unlike them, the British traditionally make tens of millions of journeys to the EU each year. We would love to make more of those trips by rail, but the tangle of red tape we negotiated means there isn't enough space for processing passengers at London St Pancras International, the Eurostar hub. Yet here's the the transport secretary, Heidi Alexander, promising 'a direct connection linking London and Berlin' could be in place 'in just a matter of years'. The press was briefed that trains from the UK to Germany could be running by 2030. Allow me to present an equally plausible transport goal for the next five years: 'Personal jet packs for all.' The UK government is clutching at bureaucratic straws with claims such as 'Estonia has confirmed they will open up access at Tallinn airport in 2026'. Wise ministers surely know they should be yelling from the rooftops something that the most ardent Leave voter must accept: 'Brexit has proved deeply damaging for British travellers to Europe, and we need to fix it.' Tourists, students, business travellers and those with family in the EU have all suffered from the self-harm administered by Brexit. Your ease of access to the EU this summer depends on your DNA and/or birthplace. UK citizens wise enough to have ancestry in Ireland, north or south, can obtain an EU passport and regain all the travel freedoms we asked to be taken away.
