On Tuesday 22nd July 2025 at 7.30pm, Politics in Pubs Manchester hosted a discussion on whether Britain should choose globalism or nationalism.  We were delighted to welcome Graham Stringer MP, (sitting Labour Party member of parliament for Blackley and Middleton South) to introduce tonight’s topic.  Graham began by saying that some of the best political discussions with his Labour Party colleagues often take place in pubs, where people feel more able to express their true thoughts and feelings.

Introduction

In Graham’s view, globalism’s publicity has always been too positive – presenting it as nations working together to care for and help humanity.  This image has paved the way for a much more technocratic approach to government.  Since World War Two there has been a marked erosion of local democratic control in Britain.  At one time local authorities had control over – and democratic accountability for – provision of  essential services like energy, water, hospitals, roads, housing and education.  Graham explained that all these services were controlled by local politicians, and funded by commercial and domestic rates collected by the council.  Control is now centralised and given over to technocratic and/or private control with much less democratic accountability – sometimes to the significant detriment of communities, as seen with the very topical example of water companies.

The democratic deficit

The same thread of reduced democratic accountability applies to international bodies made up of unelected officials which have been given control over aspects of the way Britain is governed.  In debates during the EU Referendum, those campaigning to Remain in the EU never had an answer for the democratic deficit problem.  Different laws have different impacts and Graham firmly believes that those who make our laws should be elected locally.  By 2016 most of our laws were being made in the EU.  One of the principal arguments for Britain leaving was to resume the practice of deciding our own laws.

Making poor people worse off

Another effect of globalism is the diversion of funding away from British citizens.  For example, the government is reducing winter fuel allowance and personal independence payments while spending on  international interests such as the £30 billion required to lease back the Chagos Islands.  The decision to align UK policies with the EU’s, and enter into its Defence Alliance, entails large contributions of British cash, making poor people in our country worse off.

Graham used Net Zero to illustrate the financial cost of international agreements because its green levies are having a fundamental impact on energy prices for British consumers.  Opinion polls indicate that people care about the environment but they do not wish to pay more for energy.  One of the primary tasks of the Labour Party is to find ways to redistribute the tax burden fairly.  However, Net Zero levies impose the same amount of ‘green tax’ to both the rich and the poor. While the science of Net Zero is complex, the financing of it isn’t. However, when Theresa May introduced the 2050 Net Zero deadline there was little scrutiny, no vote, and only a 30 minute debate in Parliament.  Graham was the only MP to question the cost implications of this international agreement.

Other costs of globalism

The current government’s stance is that international law should be applied to all government decisions.  As well as the financial cost already mentioned, there is a democratic cost because the application of international law in effect transfers power to judges from many judicial backgrounds – some of which are from illiberal countries and yet they are telling the UK what to do.

In addition there can be an ethical cost.  With Net Zero we have moved away from reliance on oil from illiberal Arab states to buying our wind turbines and photovoltaic equipment from authoritarian China, which is currently engaged in persecution of the Uighur people.  Instead of fracking our own domestic shale gas we are importing it all the way from the US, with long distance transportation causing an additional environmental impact.

International law and illegal immigration

The Geneva Convention was agreed internationally in 1951 to ensure that countries were not able to refuse protection to refugees in need of humanitarian treatment during war .  This followed the failure of countries to protect Jews during World War Two.  With tensions aflame in many parts of the world, including the Middle East and Africa, people are leaving their homelands.  But instead of seeking a new life in the UK in the appropriate manner, many immigrants are setting off from France in dinghies in order to arrive here illegally without the necessary documentation.  Most MPs are aware that the public is deeply concerned about illegal immigration.  In Graham’s opinion, the Geneva Convention was not designed for these circumstances and is no longer fit for purpose.

Conclusion

Globalism and internationalism result in setting up laws which cannot easily be changed and this creates a democratic deficit.  Graham’s view is that choosing nationalism by moving away from international agreements would fully restore Parliamentary sovereignty over laws affecting Britain, improve democratic accountability, and better serve British citizens.

Discussion

Q. Why do we allow judges and lawyers to overrule government actions like Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament in 2019 – shouldn’t this practice be reversed?

A. Parliament is sovereign and can choose to make, alter and remove any laws.  Governments can choose to observe judicial decisions.  While the government decision to prorogue Parliament was not reasonable, Parliament could have overruled it but chose not to.

Q. Net Zero is a globalist policy with a huge cost to citizens.  The proposed wind farm at Scout Moor will cause significant destruction to the local environment including our heritage asset the Cotton Famine Road.  With two men recently being gaoled for four years for chopping down the Sycamore Gap tree, what would an appropriate sentence for those involved in wind farm development be?  Are MPs able to question the wisdom of destructive schemes like these in a colleague’s constituency?

A. While there is a parliamentary protocol not to interfere in another MP’s constituency matters, an effective campaign strategy for constituents against wind and solar farms is to focus on the protection of wildlife e.g. the number of birds killed by wind turbines.  It is a significant problem yet often not discussed.  Constituents can emphasise this in their petitions and public meetings and invite their MPs along.  Politicians often become more sensitive to local campaigns when their party is unpopular with the electorate. There is an old saying in politics, “if one constituent writes to you it is their problem, if 10 write to you it is your problem”.

Q. Thank you for defending nationalism – only at the level of the nation state can democratic rule be exercised.  Globalism relies on the technocratic approach of ‘experts’ when what we often really need is common sense based on the shared understanding of cohesive communities.

A. Common sense can become ‘slippery’ and is less favourable than a more factual approach.  Covid is a good example where people were afraid and the government stopped ‘following the science’ and started making it up (this was examined in depth by the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee). Politicians with vested interests can also lead to bad decision-making, such as the emphasis on renewables in energy policy.

Q. Globalism and membership of countless international bodies – including WHO, NATO, ECHR and ECJ – incur huge costs and hides mis-spending.  They impede Britain’s ability to effect change for the benefit of its citizens  and corrupts accountability and the democratic process.  Nationalism is not foolproof either – corruption and a lack of accountability are enabling scandals like grooming gangs, infected blood, the inability of the army to build tanks, harmful medical interventions on children presenting with gender dysphoria, destruction of the economy from the government’s response to Covid etc. The electorate gets played both ways.

A. Democracy can only take place at a national level  because sovereignty can’t be shared.  Many billions were wasted during Covid on things like PPE and the failed ‘Test and Trace’ system.  There is a problem with transparency in politics and a tendency to cover-up.  For example, the two year super-injunction imposed to prevent the press from exposing the MOD’s leaking of data relating to Afghan allies.  A free press which is willing and able to investigate cover-ups, corruption and incompetence is essential to maintain accountability to the electorate.

Q. In America, local government is very local.  Do British MPs have difficulty getting access to good information (assuming that the level of technical knowledge within the civil service is abysmal)?

A. The organisation of local authorities has perplexed central government.  Some can be small but cities need a large local authority to get things right and to go out and sell the city.  Government makes this difficult when it centralises things too much.  Parliamentary Select Committees access quality technical information by buying in expertise from academia and elsewhere in the private sector.  The National Audit Office also provides good quality reports.  MPs need to be generalists in order to manage everything they are required to deal with but it helps if they read, and are able to follow, the specialist reports they are provided with.

Q. A massive thank you, Mr. Stringer, for all your campaigning over the years – things might be better if we all had constituency MPs like you.  Have you ever considered joining the podcast circuit in order to reach a younger audience (e.g. Triggernometry, The Lotus Eaters, and the Free Speech Union)?

A. The world of podcasts and social media has not appealed in the same way as writing the occasional article, which is useful for clarifying one’s own thoughts.

Q. Does Parliament understand how close we are to societal collapse?  It seems the UK is uniquely vulnerable to foreign attacks.  The police are not there for residents.  We have no functioning border.  Our high trust society is becoming a thing of the past.  Islamism is an international problem which is not being addressed effectively. Does Parliament realise what is happening in our communities?

A. The cabinet maintains a ‘risk register’ which is updated regularly.  The risk demonstrates how important it is that MPs study things for themselves rather than simply accepting the party line at face value – the burden of Net Zero on people’s energy bills is a good example.

Q. Like the US Democrats, the Labour Party has changed and it has left you behind.  Why do you stay?

A. In spite of its failings, Labour is the best party for achieving improvements and arguing for change.

Q. What ideas would make politics work better?

A. In the past, Parliament was comprised of many MPs with real life experience who had worked in skilled jobs and understood the lives of their constituents.  That kind of life experience is much more relevant to comprehending the implications of government policy than academic qualifications.

Q. When Britain voted to leave the EU we should have left the ECHR.  The Conservatives said they would repeal all the EU legislation but they didn’t.  The government is now re-aligning the UK with EU regulations and has signed away fishing rights for another twelve years.  How do we ‘make Britain great again’?

A. The ECHR was brought in to prevent a reoccurrence of what happened in the 1930s and 40s in Nazi Germany where people were picked up off the street without any grounds to do so.  Now the ECHR is being utilised inappropriately in this country.  In the UK we do not torture people – our citizens do not need the protection of international law.  Any alignment with the EU entails transferring power away from Parliament and the electorate.

Q. We need many more talented and competent people to enter the world of politics.  Good oratory is much more important than party loyalty.  The wrong people seem to be going into politics – some can speak well but they don’t seem to believe in anything.

A. The ability to take part in respectful rough and tumble debates is an essential skill for politicians but one that some MPs are lacking.  Again, life experience would help.  Former Labour leader John Smith would always accept every invitation to debate a new campaign in order to understand what all the issues were.

Q. For the last fifteen years or so many politicians have ignored the electorate’s concerns about issues like mass immigration, Net Zero, free speech, two tier policing and the effects of globalism.  How do we get more politicians to listen to us? How do we enrich the democratic process – with a written constitution, proportional representation, more referenda, devolution?  We have delegated the responsibility for our lives to politicians and now we are annoyed at them for failing.  Ordinary people must organise as a nation – what does that mean and how do we do it?

A. Join a political party and become a candidate.  There is much less competition than you think because most people are afraid of becoming involved in politics.  Courtesy in politics is very important.  A written constitution wouldn’t help because things change and move on – every new parliament needs to be able to do what it wants.  PR is less democratic because it involves coalition negotiations behind closed doors and the electorate is locked out.  Referenda should be rare because it slows up the process of government.

Q. No-one has made the case for globalism tonight.  Is there a case for a single global market?

A. We have to consider what is best for our country.  The EU exists because democracy failed to protect people during World War Two.  Europe put the technocrats in charge to stop it happening again.  British democracy survived so there is no reason for us to be governed by EU technocrats.  The case for nationalism is much stronger than the case for globalism.  There is a case for free trade but not if it comes with international regulations that detract from democracy in a big way.

Q. Any civil unrest is labelled as ‘far right’, manifestos aren’t delivered, petitions with millions of signatures are supposed to be debated in Parliament but MPs rarely attend.

A. MPs can’t be expected to know everything.  It is sometimes necessary and appropriate to trust that one’s constituents know what’s good for the constituency.  Some debates have a much better turn-out than others.

Q. We definitely need better politicians.  Many MPs seems to hate this country and fail to defend its reputation.  MPs have a duty to be patriotic.

A. It is hard to understand why people seek to represent a constituency when they don’t seem to like the country very much.  Universities seem to have a biased view of British history focusing on the bad aspects and overlooking the good.

Thank you

Politics in Pubs Manchester would like to thank Graham Stringer MP for introducing our topic tonight and for cordially sharing his views with us.  We would also like to thank our wonderful hosts at The Welcome Inn.  Cheers all!

About Graham Stringer MP

Graham was first elected to Parliament in 1997.  To date, he has held the government positions of Lord Commissioner (HM Treasury) and Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet Office).  Graham’s Select Committee memberships have covered a range of areas including transport, justice, and foreign affairs, with responsibility for scrutinising government expenditure, administration and policy.

Graham is currently participating in two All Party Parliamentary Groups – as Deputy Chair of the APPG on Freedom of Speech (to protect and promote freedom of speech in the UK and around the world) and as Co-Chair of the APPG Pandemic Response and Recovery (a forum for open debate on pandemic management, to prevent avoidable suffering and loss in the future and ensure that public health measures are proportional to the risk).

Outside of parliament, Graham is an unremunerated trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and an unpaid member of the political advisory board of the Foundation for Independence, a pro-Brexit group.  Prior to the EU Referendum in 2016, Graham campaigned for Britain to leave the EU, serving on the Vote Leave Campaign Committee and also on its board.

Graham is a local lad, born in Manchester.  Prior to becoming an MP, he worked as an analytical chemist, and served as Leader of Manchester City Council from 1984 until 1996.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/449/contact

Upcoming events

All our future events are advertised here: Upcoming Events.