Brexit: the far right in power through the law.

In Limbo & In Limbo Too: Brexit testimonies from EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU (2017 & 2018)

Témoignages rassemblés de citoyens impactés par le Brexit, des deux côtés.

Par Elena Remigi (Auteure, Éditrice), George Szirtes (Préface), Véronique Martin (Éditrice), Tim Sykes (Éditeur), Gareth Harrey (Illustrateur). Permission image : Elena Remigi.

Brexit: the far right in power
Bruno G. Pollet
Murielle Stentzel

Brexit is often presented as a geopolitical or economic break. It is also — and perhaps above all — one of the most successful examples of the far right’s ability to transform an identity-based ideology into a lasting legal framework. For the millions of European citizens living in the United Kingdom, this ideological victory has resulted in institutionalised legal precariousness.
The 2016 referendum campaign marked a turning point. Under the impetus of figures such as Nigel Farage, the European question was reframed as an identity struggle: borders versus mobility, national sovereignty versus supranational rights. Free movement ceased to be a legal mechanism and became a symbolic threat. European citizens living in the United Kingdom (UK) were turned into political arguments, bargaining chips, rarely subjects of law.

Revelations about Cambridge Analytica, where Steve Bannon was vice-president in its early days, showed how this rhetoric was amplified by digital micro-targeting, exploiting fears about immigration and loss of control. The complexity of European law was irrelevant: emotional narrative took precedence over legal accuracy. Brexit was thus built on an extreme simplification of the issues, which was essential for their popular acceptance.
After the referendum, Theresa May, then Prime Minister of the UK, translated this discourse into institutional terms. By choosing a hard Brexit – leaving the single market and breaking with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) – her government validated a central principle of sovereignist ideology: the absolute primacy of the state over individual rights. The EU Settlement Scheme, presented as protective, replaced automatic rights with conditional, revocable and exclusively digital administrative statuses.
Legally, the break is profound. The distinction between ‘settled’ and ‘pre-settled’ status creates a hierarchy among residents. Rights are no longer guaranteed by a supranational framework, but are subject to perfect administrative compliance. A mistake, a period of inactivity, or forgetting to convert one’s status can result in the loss of the right to work, housing, or healthcare.

Bruno G. Pollet, a European citizen who has lived in the UK for several years, describes this fragility: ‘Before Brexit, I never had to prove that I had the right to be here. Today, everything depends on a digital status. One technical error and your life can be turned upside down.’ For him, the change is also psychological: “We live with the idea that our presence is conditional. ”
Under Boris Johnson, this logic was fully embraced. The slogan ‘Get Brexit Done’ served to close the political debate while marginalising its human consequences. Communication about the requirements of the Settlement Scheme remained minimal, leaving many residents unaware of the fragility of their ‘pre-established’ status. Political speed took precedence over legal certainty.
Murielle Stentzel, a European who has been living in the UK for a decade, describes a state of constant vigilance: “Changing jobs, moving house, travelling — everything seems risky. Before, these decisions were trivial. Today, I always wonder how they might affect my status. ” This insecurity disproportionately affects older people, precarious workers, family carers and those whose life trajectories do not fit standardised administrative criteria.

The avenues for appeal are limited. Disputes now fall under British administrative law, without the guarantees offered by European law. The exclusive digitisation of statutes, without physical evidence, creates a grey area where administrative error becomes an existential fault. This precariousness is no accident: it is the product of a system designed to control rather than protect.
Brexit thus reveals a broader dynamic. The far right does not need to abolish the rule of law to transform it. It suffices to replace stable rights with conditional statutes and to normalise the idea that belonging is a revocable privilege.

Fall – Democratic accountability

Brexit reminds us of an essential truth that every democracy should face head-on: a majority vote can never be used as a licence to undermine fundamental rights. Popular sovereignty is not a licence to govern through uncertainty, nor to delegate to the administration the power to exclude without public debate.
Political responsibility begins where slogans end. It requires recognising that Europeans living in the UK are neither adjustment variables nor acceptable collateral damage, but de facto citizens — integrated, contributing, rooted. Refusing to fully secure their rights is to accept that democracy produces legal uncertainty as a mode of government.
Brexit will not be judged on its promises, but on its concrete effects on human lives. As long as uncertainty remains the rule for those who did not vote but are paying the price, it will remain less a democratic choice than a moral failure — and a warning to all societies and democracies tempted to confuse majority rule with justice.
The human cost of Brexit has never been mentioned, either by the British press or, for example, by the French and European press. In numerous testimonies from Europeans on this subject,

(testimonies collected and compiled in two books published under the title ‘IN LIMBO’), the initial reactions were disbelief and doubt regarding our testimonies. Then, finally, many of us were interviewed by the British and French media in the case of Murielle Stentzel, and this hidden part of the Brexit disaster was exposed.)

From Brexit to today – The international far right and collusion with Putin and Trump.

It has long been apparent and proven that the international far right is aligned with Vladimir Putin’s views. The fact that Russia serves as a reliable source of funding for European far-right political forces has long been an open secret. Throughout Western Europe, the Russian administration has paid and ideological allies who are working to undermine the foundations of liberal democracy and human rights from within. The work of these European far-right politicians and civil society actors hostile to gender equality, who contribute to the achievement of Russian objectives – whether they are aware of it or not – is why we should be concerned about Moscow’s financial influence. Russian funding is a reward for ideological alignment and an incentive to advance Russian interests. But it is not just about money. European conservatives – not only political parties, but also organisations that oppose women’s and LGBTIQ rights – share an ideological alignment with the ultra-conservative thinking that prevails in the Kremlin.

As for Trump, his ideas are aligned with those of Vladimir Putin, and of course, the EU is also his bête noire, because it is a thorn in his side, both as an economic power and as a beacon of democracy. Whatever its detractors may say, the EU is democratic, and it protects against any attempts to wage war against states. It is clear that Donald Trump’s administration aims to push the far right into power in all European countries (e.g. through interference in European elections and sanctions against French magistrates who convicted Marine Le Pen in the first instance in the case of the parliamentary assistants of MEPs from the Rassemblement National, RN). A section of the US national security strategy published in November 2025 is dedicated to this and mentions the promotion of European greatness and European countries that will have to submit and align themselves ideologically or, conversely, face economic coercion.

The US administration wants a Europe that reflects its own image, which would make European countries completely subservient to its power. One need only read the positions of the leaders of the National Rally in France and other far-right parties in Europe.
By destroying the EU from within, each country would be isolated and, like the United Kingdom and Brexit now, weakened geopolitically and commercially and vulnerable to the major powers that want to crush and enslave us, namely the United States and Russia.

About the authors :

Bruno G. Pollet

Bruno left the UK permanently in 2017 after his application for permanent residence was rejected by the Home Office, despite having worked and lived in the country for over 20 years.

Bruno is currently a university professor and researcher at the University of Quebec in Trois-Rivières, Canada.

Murielle Stentzel

After the Brexit vote, Murielle described being deeply affected by the changes, including professional difficulties and experiences of xenophobia, which prompted her to leave the UK in 2018 and return to France.

Murielle works as a freelance translator in France. She is the founder and editor of a public Facebook page called ‘Information contre les extrêmes’ (Information against extremism), which has over 8,600 followers, and co-author of the website ‘Résistance aux extrémismes.eu’ (Resistance to extremism). Murielle has published hundreds of articles (301) on topics such as Europe, Brexit, testimonials and political analysis. She appears regularly in the media and in interviews where she talks about her personal experience of Brexit.

Liens de sites internet :

Lien vers des pages publiques :

Liste des entrevues données (non exhaustive) :

Brexit – Article Pollet & Stentzel_01.26(1)

English translation : Murielle STENTZEL

07/02/2026
Murielle Stentzel
Brexit, Divers extrémismes, Europe, Extrême droite, Extrémismes, Témoignages, Union Européenne, Vladimir Poutine

Murielle Stentzel

Depuis l'avènement du Brexit, provoqué par l'ingérence russe, il m'est apparu vital d'alerter et de dénoncer la manipulation de masse, ourdie en vue de déstabiliser les démocraties, à grand renfort d'intox diffusées en continu par le Kremlin et ses organes de propagande. Je suis donc, depuis 2016, une activiste lanceuse d'alerte, qui a fait sienne cette citation : "Quelquefois les plus petits ressorts font mouvoir les plus grandes machines".

mes articles »