Reform UK Durham Branch Meeting (27 Jan 2026): Alan Mendoza on Brexit, Security, and Britain’s Future

What does foreign policy have to do with Durham residents’ energy bills, their safety on the high street, or whether public services cope in Durham and shape Durham’s future? Quite a lot, as Reform UK supporters heard at the Reform UK City of Durham branch meeting on 27 January 2026, with Dr Alan Mendoza as guest speaker.

The evening mixed local organising with big national questions: how Britain should deal with Europe after Brexit, what “security” really means in 2026, and why trust in politics has worn so thin. Along the way, the message from the Durham branch was familiar to anyone who feels the last 30 years have delivered less accountability and more excuses: people want transparency, straight answers, and a government that acts in the national interest.

A Durham welcome, and a push to grow the movement locally

The meeting opened with New Year greetings and a warm welcome to visitors who had travelled in from other branches and nearby villages, exemplifying strong local community engagement and fostering an inclusive environment. University students also got a special mention for crossing what the chair called the “political incorrectness barrier”, with a clear challenge for next time: bring more friends, not just a handful.

There was also a practical nod to community life in Durham. The branch thanked Dave and the club committee for hosting the event, with a quick reminder that member contributions through local membership (a fiver a year was mentioned) and bar activity can quickly cover that modest outlay while building a stronger community. The tone was friendly, but purposeful: branch nights like this are meant to build a bigger base, not just provide a talk.

The chair also pointed to past speakers and the fact that one previous guest later went on to win election to the party’s board. It set the scene for an evening that was not only about ideas, but also about building a serious political force locally through the local voices of supporters. That local focus matters in Durham, where Reform UK’s message centres on accountability, cutting waste, stronger public services, and backing the people who keep the region going.

Who is Dr Alan Mendoza, and why his role matters

Dr Alan Mendoza was introduced as Reform UK’s adviser on global affairs and foreign policy, brought in after being appointed by Nigel Farage as a key part of guest discussions focused on policy and reform discussions within the party. The point made from the start was simple: his name might be newer to some Reform supporters, but his background in foreign policy is well established.

His academic credentials were highlighted (Cambridge and postgraduate study, plus a PhD), alongside his role as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. He was also presented as someone who is not only academic, but active in national and international policy debates.

A major part of the introduction focused on his long-standing leadership of the Henry Jackson Society, described as an international affairs think tank headquartered in London, with branches in New York and Washington. The story told was of a 20-year build, from its early days as a Cambridge-based project to a larger organisation with research capacity, media reach, cross-party political backing, and a busy events programme.

One detail that landed well in the room was the personal commitment: Mendoza had given up the best part of two days to be in Durham for a short evening event. For supporters in the room, it reinforced the credibility and serious nature of the event for the branch as Reform grows.

Brexit after Brexit: trade with Europe, without losing sovereignty

On Britain’s relationship with Europe, Mendoza argued that the main problem was not Brexit itself, but what followed. Brexit, he said, was a sound idea, but it was delivered without a clear end vision. In his view, that vacuum allowed European negotiators to outmanoeuvre the UK side, producing an outcome that failed to deliver the meaningful change many Leave voters had been promised.

He contrasted that with the counterfactual, suggesting the result would have looked very different if Nigel Farage had been in charge in the years after 2016. He also criticised the idea of drifting back towards deeper European alignment without transparent governance or a clear public mandate regarding international trade and sovereignty, claiming the current direction was not put openly to voters.

Reform’s position, as described on the night, was not about hostility to Europe. Europe is there, and Britain will always trade and cooperate with neighbours. The dividing line was sovereignty: Britain should be free to trade with Europe in the way it trades globally, without being pulled into arrangements that weaken self-government.

Mendoza’s practical suggestion was to start relationship-building early, by reaching out to sympathetic figures in European politics and government. The goal would be to make any future renegotiation more realistic and less punitive, by framing it as mutual benefit rather than a replay of bruising stand-offs. He also noted that political shifts on the continent could change the tone quickly, pointing to France and the possibility of major change there.

Security, radical Islam, and integration: “one law for everyone”

One of the most intense parts of the discussion was a long Q&A session, part of the party’s open forums designed to elevate local voices on sensitive issues like integration and the rule of law, focusing on radical Islam, policing, and social cohesion. Mendoza said he had studied radical Islam for around 20 years, and stressed a key distinction: Islam is not one fixed thing. There are liberal and moderate Muslims, as well as aggressive and militant interpretations, and those differences matter.

His argument was that radical Islam is incompatible with British traditions because it seeks to replace British law and norms with a competing system. He claimed the state must be willing to confront that problem directly, and criticised political leaders for avoiding the language of “radical Islam” even when attacks and intimidation happen.

He gave an example linked to disorder and anti-social behaviour in Birmingham and decisions around football fans, describing a situation where police feared violence from local radicals, then attempted to justify restrictions in other ways rather than dealing head-on with the threat. He also criticised the reliance on questionable information sources, mentioning the use of AI reporting in the chain of events. For him, the wider danger was the precedent: bans and restrictions applied because of politics, while those threatening violence escape the focus.

Two further points stood out:

• Radical groups, he said, also terrorise moderate Muslims, enforcing behaviour through fear and intimidation.
• Reform’s approach, as discussed, included banning the Muslim Brotherhood, described as an extremist network that spreads radical influence inside communities.

The conversation then turned to integration and the idea of parallel legal systems. A question was raised about Sharia law and whether everyone is governed equally. Mendoza’s answer was blunt: Britain should have one law, and religious rules should not override British law. He argued that ghettos and heavy segregation weaken cohesion, making it easier for extremists to dominate local life. He cited research and past policy work suggesting integration improves when segregation is reduced, and when common expectations such as speaking English are enforced.

A small but telling example was raised from the audience about guide dogs, and how religious pressures can reduce quality of life for vulnerable people. The point made back was that allowing religious diktats to override civic life harms those who most need protection.

“Interests first” foreign policy, and using British power properly

Mendoza’s foreign policy frame was straightforward: start with what benefits the British people, pursuing meaningful change in how Britain operates on the world stage. That led into criticism of parts of the United Nations system, including agencies he said Britain should stop funding if they do not align with British interests or values. He singled out the UN Human Rights Council as lacking credibility, and criticised the record of UNRWA, arguing public money should not support bodies seen as compromised.

He also challenged Britain’s reluctance to use the power it already holds. A striking example was the UK’s veto on the UN Security Council. Mendoza asked when Britain last used it, then said it was last authorised under Margaret Thatcher, decades ago. In his view, Britain has grown timid, even when national interests are clear. He used the Chagos Islands dispute as an example where, he argued, Britain could have taken a harder line.

That same realism shaped his view of dictators and conflict. He argued agreements that legitimise aggression tend to invite more aggression, and said dictators respond to pressure, not goodwill. He brought in historical examples, including the importance of stopping aggressors early.

On Ukraine, he pushed back on what he described as vague pledges to send troops without clarity on scale, timing, or the reality of Britain’s current capacity, including its defense industrial base. His preference was for a strategy that makes future aggression too costly, through aligned pressure and credible deterrence, rather than small deployments that risk becoming a “trip wire”; he emphasized the necessity of infrastructure investment to ensure Britain’s long-term security.

Growth, defence, and energy: bringing strength back home

A challenge from the floor asked whether talk of Britain as a major power is realistic after decades of relative economic decline. Mendoza accepted that the UK has shrunk relative to rising giants like India and China, but argued Britain can still do far more if it returns to economic growth. Without growth, he said, nothing else is affordable, from defence to public services, especially when efforts to slash council waste are prioritized.

He linked that to investment and trade wins that can come from foreign policy, mentioning interest from Gulf investors in Reform’s economic direction, benefits that could flow to small businesses in Durham. He also argued that rebuilding the defence industrial base is not only about security, but also jobs, exports, and national capability. One example mentioned was joint work with Ukraine on long-range missile development, framed as something that could be built in Britain and sold abroad.

He also made a strong case for naval power, not as nostalgia but as practical defence for an island nation. Undersea cables were used as an example of a modern vulnerability: cut the cables and the country quickly faces severe disruption, from banking to communications.

Energy security became a major theme near the end. Mendoza agreed with the view that high energy costs are crushing households and businesses, and said a Reform approach would focus on lowering prices through domestic supply. North Sea drilling was supported, and he argued nuclear power offers a serious route to reliable, cleaner energy, as long as control remains British. He also criticised policies he saw as self-defeating, including the logic of importing biomass fuel while domestic options are restricted.

Farmers and rural communities came up too, with concerns about land being pushed into wind and solar developments at the expense of food production. Mendoza framed sustainable development through farming as part of national security: if you cannot feed yourself, you are exposed. Building local regional strength also requires addressing local bus services and fixing potholes. He also treated rural life as something worth protecting in its own right, as part of Britain’s heritage and identity.

Trust, institutions, and why people still feel let down

One of the most important moments came when one of the Durham residents asked a question many people think but rarely say out loud: why should anyone believe politicians anymore?

Mendoza’s answer leaned heavily on trust in Nigel Farage, and on what he described as the grassroots nature of Reform’s rise. His argument was that Reform’s momentum does not come from well-known figures joining, it comes from ordinary people turning up, campaigning, and demanding change.

He also spoke about institutions that have let people down, particularly in areas like housing initiatives and social housing, including universities and schools. He cited polling he had discussed on radio suggesting a significant minority of students would support banning Reform from campuses, and described this as part of a wider problem of political bias inside institutions. His conclusion was that any new government must be able to enforce neutrality and professionalism in state bodies, including the civil service, and be prepared for resistance.

The meeting also touched on party momentum, including praise for Nigel Farage’s political instincts, and discussion of high-profile support joining Reform from elsewhere on the right. There was also a practical reminder that elections are won through turnout and hard work, with calls for mutual aid campaigning and volunteer opportunities in areas holding local elections.

Imagine waking up to a country where integrity leads and promises are kept. If you’re ready to help shape a government that listens and acts, Join Reform UK and take part locally. Make sure to register to vote. When election day comes, Vote Reform UK and back the change you want to see. The aim is simple: rebuild trust, restore competence, and Make Britain Great Again.

Conclusion

This Reform UK City of Durham branch meeting made one thing clear: politics does not stop at Westminster, it reaches into borders, bills, policing, and the confidence people feel in their own country. Mendoza’s message was that Britain can recover strength through a return to competence, including better healthcare and social services, improved community wellbeing, growth, secure energy, credible defence, and a clear stance on integration and the rule of law. If you want a future where your voice matters and action replaces slogans, stay tuned for upcoming events that will shape Durham’s future, get involved locally, Join Reform UK, and when the time comes, Vote Reform UK to Make Britain Great Again.