The Bridge: a Disagreeing Well podcast

How can we disagree well about the UK's future? In this episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from UCL and Students’ Union UCL, we examine the long-term impact of Brexit 10 years after the referendum. While the past decade has brought significant shifts in trade, immigration, and sovereignty, the debate remains deeply polarised. Some view the current economic landscape as proof that the decision was a mistake, while others maintain that Britain is only beginning to find its feet as a sovereign nation. In this episode of The Bridge we dive into the heart of this divide. We explore the practical realities of rejoining the bloc versus the potential risks of entering another decade of political instability. UCL student host Diego Lacheze-Beer facilitates a conversation between two guests who both recognize the challenges of the last decade but disagree profoundly on the road ahead: Madeleina Kay, artist, campaigner, and Youth Engagement Officer for the Young European Movement, argues that Brexit has disproportionately damaged the prospects of young people. She advocates for a step-by-step alignment with the EU, viewing full membership as the ultimate path to a better future. Peter Heaton-Jones, a former Conservative MP and public affairs professional, voted to remain in 2016 but now believes rejoining would be "nonsensical" and damaging. He suggests that the UK can reclaim many benefits, such as youth mobility and research collaboration, through specific negotiations without the "protracted process" of rejoining. Our resident UCL expert mediator, Dr. Melanie Garson, utilised techniques to help the guests look past the "remain vs. leave" labels to find the underlying values at play. She encouraged the guests to step into each other's shoes, helping them acknowledge the human impact of the debate - from the "cruel" reality of divided families to the economic need for national stability. Key takeaways from this episode: Is it time for a second Brexit referendum? Our guests debate whether another vote would provide clarity or simply "suck the air out" of other vital public policy issues like housing and growth. Acknowledge the Human Element: Melanie highlighted that this debate isn't just about GDP; it’s about personal identity and the real-life consequences of borders on families and relationships. The "Hokey Cokey" Risk: Both guests agreed that constant vacillation is harmful. Peter emphasized that a "permanent cycle" of referendums would be damaging to national progress. Finding Technical Overlap: Despite their disagreement on the final goal, both guests found common ground in supporting schemes like Erasmus+ and the Youth Experience Scheme as practical ways to help the next generation. Listen now to hear how we can bridge the generational and political divide over Britain's place in Europe. This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.   This is a Research Podcasts production.   Episode Credits Presenter:  Diego Lacheze-Beer, Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair Guests:  Madeleina Kay and Peter Heaton-Jones Producer and editor: Research Podcasts Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer 

In recent months, the debate over asylum has moved beyond the corridors of Westminster to the heart of local communities. Across the country, the raising of St George’s flags in various towns and the significant unrest in Epping surrounding the use of ‘asylum hotels’ have highlighted a deeply polarised public. While these events are seen by some as a manifestation of community anxiety and a sense of powerlessness, others view them as a confrontational escalation that complicates an already sensitive humanitarian issue. As the UK continues to navigate the tension between international obligations and national border control, the core question remains: does the UK do enough for asylum seekers? In this episode of The Bridge: A Disagreeing Well Podcast from University College London and Students’ Union UCL, we examine whether the current system is grounded in reality or driven by "policy myths". UCL student host Diego Lacheze-Beer facilitates a nuanced discussion between two guests who, despite deep ideological differences, find common ground:Amina Khanom, Director of the charity Reset Communities for Refugees, argues that the UK is not doing enough. She contends that "pull factors" - the idea that welfare or work rights attract refugees - are myths unsupported by data. For Amina, the focus should be on creating safe, regular routes and fixing a "slow and under-resourced" system that pushes people into the hands of smugglers. Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham, believes the UK is doing enough for those who arrive, but should shift its focus. He argues that while people have a right to asylum (safety), they do not have an inherent right to settlement in a wealthy country. He advocates for offshore processing and strict annual quotas to disincentivise those he views as primarily economic migrants. Key Takeaways from this Episode: Understand the "Why": Melanie encouraged the guests to share their personal motivations - Amina’s lived experience as a Bangladeshi immigrant and Professor Kaufmann’s academic interest in national identity - to humanise the roots of their disagreement. Challenge the Binary: The discussion moves beyond the simple "genuine vs non-genuine" refugee label, exploring how conflict, economic collapse, and instability are often interconnected, making simple categorisation difficult. Identify Common Solutions: Despite opposing views on settlement, both guests agreed on the necessity of funding better facilities and infrastructure in countries geographically closer to conflict zones, such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. The Power of Curiosity: The guests reflected on the importance of approaching "hotly debated" topics with curiosity rather than a need to "win," emphasising that open dialogue in a university setting is vital for taking the "venom" out of public discourse. Listen now to hear how we can bridge the divide on one of the most polarising issues in modern British politics. This production was led by UCL student presenters, Diego Lacheze-Beer and Marva Khalid, who are participants on Students’ Union UCL’s Impartial Chairs Programme. Find out more about the programme and, if you are a UCL student, how you can apply here.   This is a Research Podcasts production.   Episode Credits Presenter:  Diego Lacheze-Beer Students’ Union UCL Impartial Chair Guests:  Amina Khanom and Eric Kaufmann Producer and editor: Research Podcasts Music: The Investigation by Pixabay  Artwork: Johnson Banks and Indianna Dimmer  Further reading and resources  Kaufmann, E. (2018) Whiteshift: populism, immigration and the future of white majorities Reset Communities for Refugees The Migration Observatory (2025) Changes to settlement: what do they mean?.