Reform UK City Of Durham Meeting: Alan Mendoza On Brexit, Security, And Energy

What does “getting Britain back on its feet” look like when the world feels less stable every month? At the Reform UK City of Durham branch meeting on 27 Jan 2026, members heard a wide-ranging talk from Dr Alan Mendoza, followed by a lively Q and A that moved from Brexit and Europe to borders, policing, defence, energy security and the pressure on rural life.

This wasn’t abstract theory. The point, again and again, was that politics has consequences, from household energy bills to whether the UK can protect its own interests overseas.

A winter meeting in Durham, with a simple message: bring more people next time

The evening opened with a Happy New Year welcome, with a nod to visitors who travelled in from other branches and nearby villages. University students also got a direct invitation, alongside a wry reference to the “political incorrectness barrier” that can put people off coming along in the first place.

There was also a practical reminder that local institutions still matter. Members thanked the club hosting the meeting, and encouraged people to join, even if they do not live in the city, because the annual fee is modest and the bar discount quickly covers it.

That local focus fits the wider pitch Reform UK makes in Durham: put residents first, explain decisions plainly, and stop wasting money. It also reflects the wider national framing you will have seen from Reform UK more broadly, a movement that says Britain can still be confident, safe and prosperous, as long as leadership stops making excuses and starts acting.

Dr Alan Mendoza: from think tank founder to Reform UK foreign policy adviser

Dr Alan Mendoza was introduced as Reform UK’s adviser on global affairs and foreign policy, appointed by Nigel Farage only months earlier. Members also heard that he supports Ukraine’s independence, presented as a direct rebuttal to claims that Reform UK is soft on Moscow.

His background is rooted in academia and policy work: he holds degrees from Cambridge, including a doctorate, and he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Professionally, he leads the Henry Jackson Society, which focuses on international affairs and is headquartered in London, with activity in the United States as well. Mendoza co-founded the organisation around 20 years ago, and described building it from a small start into a larger operation with research, media output and events.

That matters because his central theme was not “foreign policy for insiders”. It was the idea that Britain needs a clearer view of what it is for, what it will tolerate, and what it will no longer fund or excuse.

His guiding principle was straightforward: foreign policy should start with what benefits the British public, then build alliances that match those interests.

Brexit, Europe and the argument for trade without surrendering sovereignty

On Brexit, Mendoza’s view was blunt. Brexit itself, he argued, was a sound idea, but the follow-through failed because the people implementing it did not have a clear end goal. He suggested that the UK ended up outmanoeuvred in negotiations, then warned that the country now risks drifting back towards EU structures without a proper public mandate.

At the same time, the message was not “pick a fight with Europe”. Europe exists, and Britain should trade with European neighbours as it trades with other countries. The red line, as he framed it, is sovereignty, Britain should not accept new constraints that limit self-government.

He also argued that the UK should prepare now for future renegotiation by building relationships across Europe with politicians who are open to a more practical settlement. Political shifts on the continent could change the mood, he noted, pointing to the possibility of major change in France as one example.

Security at home: radical Islam, policing failures, migration, and integration

A large part of the Q and A turned to radical Islam, policing, and social cohesion. Mendoza stressed that Islam is not one thing, and that many Muslims live ordinary, peaceable lives. His line, however, was that radical Islam is incompatible with British traditions because it seeks to replace the country’s system with something else.

One example discussed at length was a controversy involving West Midlands Police and a ban linked to Israeli football fans. Mendoza claimed the original fear was that local radicals might attack, and that instead of dealing with threats directly, authorities looked for other reasons to justify restrictions. He also criticised the idea that police relied on flawed information, including what he said was an AI-based report, and warned about policing becoming shaped by pressure groups rather than equal treatment.

He also argued that radicals intimidate moderate Muslims first, describing how social threats can be used to enforce strict religious behaviour inside communities.

From there, discussion widened to migration. On illegal migration, Mendoza supported tougher deterrence, including pressing France harder, and pointed to Australia’s approach as proof that determined policy can reduce crossings. He also said Britain must stop being seen as an easy option, including by ending incentives that make arriving unlawfully feel risk-free.

On legal migration, he highlighted population “churn” as much as net numbers, citing a recent pattern he described as roughly 900,000 arrivals and 700,000 departures in a year. His argument was that large-scale churn changes communities quickly and puts heavy pressure on housing and infrastructure, while low-skilled migration can become economically self-defeating if it brings dependants supported by the state.

Integration and “one law for all” came up repeatedly. Mendoza opposed separate legal systems and argued that the UK should insist on British law in public life. He also backed breaking up ghettoisation, including through policies that encourage mixing, and said evidence shows less segregated communities tend to hold more socially liberal views over time. A question about guide dogs highlighted how informal religious rules can end up reducing freedom for vulnerable people, including blind Muslims, which he used as a warning against allowing religious diktats to override civic norms.

From Ukraine to China: using British power properly, and choosing allies that pull their weight

Mendoza’s foreign policy position rested on two linked ideas: dictators respond to pressure, and Britain should act like a serious country again.

On Ukraine, he dismissed the idea that deals like Minsk could have stopped Russia long-term, arguing that rewarding aggression invites more of it. He also drew a historical comparison: if you do not stop expansion early, you pay later. In that context, he criticised vague commitments to deploy British troops without a clear mission or capability, warning that symbolic deployments risk becoming “trip wires” rather than real deterrence.

He then zoomed out to alliances and institutions. Britain, he said, should work with allies, but alliances must be useful both ways. He argued the UK should stop funding international bodies that do not serve British interests, citing the UN Human Rights Council as discredited, and criticising UNRWA on the grounds it was too sympathetic to Hamas.

One striking detail was his point about the UK’s UN Security Council veto. He said Britain has not used it since Margaret Thatcher’s time, and framed that as evidence of a country that has become hesitant about its own authority. He also referenced the Chagos Islands as a case where he believed the UK should have held firm.

On China, Mendoza returned to a theme of infrastructure security. He cited the Huawei 5G row as an example of why Britain should not hand strategic systems to companies tied to authoritarian states, because of data access and influence risks. He also warned about Taiwan, not only as a security flashpoint, but because of supply chains and global trade routes.

The United States, in his view, remains Britain’s indispensable ally. Yet he also argued for a reset: Europe cannot keep relying on the US to pay most of the bill for security. He described President Trump’s approach as disruptive but strategically focused, and suggested Washington thinks in longer arcs, with China as the main rival.

Energy, farming and growth: the base that everything else sits on

When the conversation returned to daily life, it went straight to energy bills. Mendoza echoed Reform UK’s argument that high energy costs punish households and cripple business. He supported a more self-reliant approach that uses domestic resources, including oil and gas, alongside a revived nuclear sector.

He mocked what he saw as self-defeating “green” policy, with Drax raised as a symbol of perverse incentives, importing wood to burn while claiming carbon virtue. Nuclear, he argued, offers a cleaner and more reliable route if Britain rebuilds its own capacity rather than depending on others.

Rural Durham concerns came through strongly too. Members raised the pressure on farmers, including land being pushed towards wind and solar projects, and the fear that farming becomes less viable. Mendoza’s answer focused on food security and the importance of rural communities as a way of life, not just an industry.

Finally, he tied domestic strength to international strength. If Britain wants credible defence and influence, it needs growth. He referenced weak GDP figures as a warning sign, then spoke about attracting investment and rebuilding industry, including defence manufacturing. He gave examples such as co-development of weapons with Ukraine and the need for a capable navy, including to protect undersea cables that carry Britain’s data and banking traffic.

The trust question, and the case for Reform UK in Durham

A memorable moment came when a Durham attendee challenged the room: why trust any of this, after decades of broken promises and politicians switching badges?

Mendoza’s reply focused on leadership and movement. He argued that Reform UK’s energy comes from ordinary members, not from Westminster careerists, and said high-profile arrivals only matter if they truly accept that the old way failed.

That local, grounded approach also matches what Reform UK supporters in Durham say they want from politics: less waste, safer streets, functioning public services, and a country that rewards effort. Reform UK nationally says it is now a large and growing membership party, with more than 270,000 members, and its policy leadership has spoken about priorities like improving social care capacity and reducing waiting times. In Durham, the themes raised by members, from crime and anti-social behaviour to small business pressure, buses, potholes and fair access to housing, all fed into the same demand for competent government that does the basics well.

Conclusion: a country that keeps its promises, starting close to home

The Durham meeting covered a lot, but the thread was consistent: protect the public, keep the state honest, and stop acting powerless. If that’s the direction you want, the next step is simple. Join Reform UK, get involved locally, and help build the kind of politics that treats people like adults.

Imagine waking up to a country where integrity leads and promises are kept, where your concerns set the agenda and action replaces endless talk. If you’re ready to back that change, Vote Reform UK and help Make Britain Great Again.