Category: Blog

Arguments and Opinions

Munich and After

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Blog, National Events

First, the Munich security conference. A lot of energy went into the mood music at Munich. Marco Rubio was much nicer than Vance was at the same do last year. That’s hardly a great achievement, given Vance’s behaviour, and Rubio had an easy ride, waxing sentimental about the European roots of the US, and drawing some pathetically grateful applause from members of his European audience. But the substance of what he said was the same as last year, in an even worse situation. His warm words don’t begin to repair the damage done over Greenland.

There was Munich mood music also from Starmer, who spoke of the end of the Brexit era, proclaiming a page turned in our relationship with the EU. It sounded great, but he didn’t actually have anything substantial on offer, so, yes, it was really all about mood. Certainly that mood was positive, and as a way of celebrating the negotiations with Europe over the past year, it was a positive look. But what has been achieved is limited, and the road ahead is as potholed as the A52. Also someone has noticed a new pothole- the UK’s Foie Gras ban which could mess up the negotiation of the veterinary agreement. We need more than mood music to get us over that.

However, its not now clear whether it matters any more what Starmer says or does. On the one hand the Gorton and Denton byelection result changes the landscape, with Labour coming in third, and the pro-Europe Greens winning handsomely, pushing reform into second place. So Starmer is more damaged than ever, and it will be interesting to see (1) how long he can last and (2) whether he will henceforth be able to summon up the political momentum to do anything further with Europe. On the other hand he is now half- supporting Trump’s attack on Iran, and wartime prime ministers typically get an extra lease of life in the short term. But he is stirring up a fair bit of indignation on the left over his subordination to Trump. So his extra lease could be very short indeed.

Assuming (and there’s no certainty on this) that the Iran war doesn’t create a national emergency and a major upheaval in the UK, and politics continues as usual, then we have the prospect of three years of rule by a disintegrating Labour party and a zombified Starmer. Slow torture. And, to twist the knife, unless the Greens work their magic on a grand scale, a Reform government awaits at the end of it. It would be great to think that the Greens will take over as the bulwark against Reform, keep them out of government, and keep the European momentum going. But I fear that’s a fantasy. Gorton and Denton is an untypical constituency, and anyway we need a different coalition to keep the European cause afloat. The Green accommodation with Your Party and the Gaza group won’t exactly strengthen their pro-Europe agenda. Who can rejoiners rely on?

Trump, Carney and Davos

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Blog

Our path back to Europe is steep and treacherous indeed; and just to remind us of that, Europe underwent a serious test the other week when Trump threatened to grab Greenland from Denmark by force. If he had gone ahead, its hard to see how Denmark, or anyone else, could have stopped him. The US already has troops there, (legitimately, by treaty) and could have flown many more in from Alaska. The symbolic contingents from other European states could not have resisted. Europe would have had to confine itself to diplomatic, economic and symbolic measures in response, probably hurting themselves more than they could hurt Trump.

But Trump backed off. Perhaps it was too dire even for him to commit an act of war against an ostensible ally, when he saw that they were not going to cave in, and were supported by other NATO states. Of course he could have trampled over all of that; but he stopped short. If he had gone ahead, it would have been irrevocable, and maybe that was too much for him. Starmer stood with Europe on this, though in a rather lukewarm way. That was a small step in the right direction. I wonder what Badenoch or Farage would have done.

Two important things came out of this. The first is the urgent need for the UK and Europe to free themselves from dependence on the US. That will take some years, and those years will be tense and dangerous.

The second thing is Canada. Mark Carney made a speech at Davos arguing that the ‘rules-based world order’ is now history, and middle-rank powers must move away from dependence on the US, toward a policy of mutual support among themselves. What he didn’t say, but clearly implied, was that the US, far from being a reliable protector, is now a predator-power like Russia and China. He didn’t need to spell that out, but the US is clearly a potential danger to Canada and to Europe. For Canada the danger is invasion and occupation, which Trump has implied as a possibility. For Europe the danger is abandonment to the tender mercies of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.  As Carney said ’if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.’

Porfirio Diaz, Mexican president in the late 19th century once lamented ‘Poor Mexico! so far from God, so close to the United States!’ Those words must be in Carney’s mind right now. But at least he has the beginnings of a plan. And if Canada is too close to the United States, Europe is too close to Russia. For both, we can easily imagine the menu: Europe falling under Russian domination, fulfilling Stalin’s dream; Canada becoming the 51st state (too big, actually; it would have to be several states).

But as Carney implied, Europe and Canada could chart an alternative path. Europe has population- way in advance of Russia, even of the US. And there is strength in numbers, properly mobilized. Canada is light on population but rich in resources, especially oil. Oil is the key to power in the international jungle, and it’s the lack of oil that makes Europe so vulnerable. Canadian oil could free Europe from dependence on Russian gas. But Canada would need something back; strong allies committed to mutual aid, NATO-style. Any takers?

Where we are. End of 2025

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Blog

Several recent news items suggest that progress is being made toward a deeper rapprochement with the EU. Most notably, the UK is back in the EU’s Erasmus + scheme, meaning that British students will be able to attend universities in the EU, and vice versa for EU students to the UK. So the upcoming British generation of young adults are having something of their European heritage returned to them at last. The importance of that move can be gauged from the vituperative response of the daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail to those developments.

It looks as if there is also diplomatic progress on Youth Mobility. Less tangible, but equally important, we seem to be seeing slow shifts in thinking within the Labour Party. That showed through in recent remarks by David Lammy. If something like this rate can be maintained through till 2029, we can hope for some real movement. It has felt glacially slow at times.  But even at that pace a lot can happen in three and a half years.

So what will happen to all that progress if Reform win in 2029. The odds for that happening seem not to be changing much as time passes. Things will almost certainly get tighter as we approach the election, but Reform are starting from an exceptionally strong position in the polls. So we need to plan for a Reform government in 2029.

Reform may reverse all progress that has been achieved, and distance us again from the EU, at least as much as Johnson and Frost did in 2020, and perhaps more. That would fit their declared programme. But we can’t just wait for the worst. It may be possible to salvage something of these gains through a campaign to mobilize support for them among those who stand to lose most by their cancellation. Links that offer a clearly arguable economic advantage would be the best choice in the long run, but by 2029 they won’t have had much impact, or gained many friends among the general public. Culturally-oriented links such as Erasmus and Youth Mobility might be worth a fight however. Certainly for Erasmus there may be a student constituency by 2029 who had high hopes of study abroad, and would be vocally unhappy about having that snatched away. But also those programmes may not produce too much hostility from most Reform people. Free movement is the real hate; and that particular can will need to be kicked further down the road.

The context is changing in other ways. By 2029 Europe might start to look a little different, and a little more congenial to some Reform people. We may well get Bardella in the Elysee Palace in 2027, for instance. It will be a challenge for British rejoiners to adjust to that, but it might also be an incentive for Reform to get a little closer to France. Bardella is a Eurosceptic but he isn’t a Frexiter, and according to Steve Anglesey in the New World Newsletter on December 11th, he has expressed some favourable views about the UK going back into the EU. There might be an interesting angle there for Farage who has just had an (apparently) friendly meeting with Bardella.  The prospect of a more right-wing Europe was discussed in this blog in July 2024 and the challenge remains.  The Bardella model of the EU is likely to be very different from the present arrangements, and much less congenial. But still, its better than the AfD version, which wants Germany out of the EU completely.

What if we look westward, away from Europe? In times past the UK’s close relationships worked in two directions, Our friends in Europe and our friends in the US could compensate one another to some degree, so a cooling on one side might be balanced by a warming on the other. However, the US, though technically perhaps still an ally, is certainly no longer a friend. Trump and his administration are hostile to the UK in all but military terms, as they are to the rest of Europe. The sentiments expressed by Vice-President Vance’s in his speech in February 2025  have now solidified into a policy agenda for the Trump administration through their recently-published National Security Strategy. The section on Europe is fairly short (its a world overview) and its very hostile; intensely hostile to supranational bodies such as the EU; and to migration; and to cultural change. The policy document expresses a clear intention to interfere in Europe’s affairs, support nationalist parties and break up the EU.

What that implies for the UK is not entirely clear, but it looks very likely that Trump will make considerable efforts to prevent the UK from getting closer to the EU. Its easy to imagine a scenario in the minds of Trump’s team where the rest of Europe falls into the Russian sphere of influence, partly through electoral politics (think AfD) partly through military intimidation; while the UK (and perhaps Ireland) fall into the US sphere, again partly through electoral politics (think Reform) partly through economic intimidation.

This is not an attractive prospect. If The EU and the UK reject the Trump prescription, they are going to find themselves caught between two hostile powers, one east, one west, both far more militarized and aggressive than Europe. It is not going to be comfortable for us in the UK to be part of that squeezed middle. But we need to consider the alternatives. The US and Russia don’t want allies, they want puppets and patsies.  Likewise China. That is something we should all be thinking about. Bardella and Farage no doubt see Putin and Trump as very useful in their present campaigning. But after 2027 and 2029 respectively (assuming they are in power) they will need to think hard about what friends and allies they really need. So shall we all.

What does Europe mean to you?

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Blog

This is the title of a video recently put out by the European Movement. Find it here. It presents a word-cloud of positive associations expressed by a selection of vox pop respondents about the idea of Europe. ‘Freedom; Culture; Sunshine’- on it goes.  And many respondents also express a sad awareness of what we have lost through Brexit. This is aimed at people who share a positive view of Europe but may not know about the work of the European Movement. It concludes with a bit of recruitment for the EM. Presented by Caroline Lucas, co-president of the EM. They ask that we try to propagate the video as widely as possible.

Breaking the Brexit Silence

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Blog, National Events

In recent weeks a number of senior figures in the UK have finally come out and said that Brexit has damaged the UK economy. Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, Wes Streeting and most recently Andrew Bailey, Head of the Bank of England, have all acknowledged at different points during October, that Brexit is doing lasting harm to the UK economy. The importance of this development lies in what went before: the relative silence and avoidance that has been practiced by senior labour politicians and public officials since Brexit happened. The Brexit omerta, the ‘elephant in the room’ that we can’t mention, has been a huge frustration to pro-Europeans looking to move closer to Europe. But the taboo is finally being broken. No doubt Starmer, Reeves and Streeting co-ordinated their comments, and no doubt their decision was based on their view that the climate has now changed sufficiently for a more open debate at national level. Let’s hope they are right about that. But what about Bailey? Was he part of the plan? In some ways his was the most telling intervention.

There are risks in this. One of the problems in the 2016 referendum campaign was the widely held view that the ‘establishment’ were in favour of remaining in the EU, and Joe Public should accordingly be wary of pro-remain arguments, particularly those with a ‘project fear’ flavour. Brexit was presented as the democratic option, and the choice for optimists and patriots. We don’t want that perception to creep in again. Starmer et al need to make it clear that they are responding to popular concerns about the effects of Brexit rather than elite ‘I told you so’s. Moving back toward Europe needs to be presented as the path of hope and optimism.

What about the ECHR?

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Blog, National Events

The issue of the European Convention on Human Rights seems to be coming to a head as the Tories and Reform call for the withdrawal of the UK. The European Movement has posted an open letter to Hilary Benn, the relevant minister, calling on him to support the UK’s continued membership. The ECHR issue offers easy prey for the brexiteers in their project to widen the gulf between the UK and the EU. Withdrawal from the ECHR would certainly produce that result, both in generally, and also specifically in relation to the position of Northern Ireland under the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement, and the Good Friday Agreement. It would be a damaging move, so please sign the open letter.

Its clear that the debate around the ECHR has been inflamed by the involvement of the European Court of Human Rights in asylum appeals. Given the extent of small boats anxiety in the UK, there is a danger of a hostile head of steam building up toward the ECHR among people who are not otherwise anti-Europe; something that has not been widespread hitherto. This could be a problem for the rejoin movement.

What is NOT being widely publicized is the fact that the UK government is pressing for ECHR rules to be amended to reduce the likelihood of the court’s appeals decisions undermining  UK government efforts with regard to illegal immigration. According to LBC this proposal to reform the ECHR is already supported by 16 European states (out of 25 signatory states) and has good prospects of success. But it needs to cut through to public awareness. The ECHR performs a very positive role in many areas, and its far better for the UK to push on with reforming it, rather than yet again pull out of an important European institution. As LBC points out, the only country so far to have left the ECHR is Russia. That should give us pause for thought.

Erasmus and Youth Mobility

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Blog, National Events

Interesting news in the last 6 days on Youth mobility and Erasmus. The BBC has reported that Rachel Reeves has joined EU negotiators in pressing for progress on the UK/EU Youth Mobility Scheme, seemingly pushing back against Starmer’s hesitation on this. She argues that the Scheme would be good for the UK economy. Clearly there’s an urgent need for something to be good for the economy, so maybe here it is. I guess it could go some way to easing labour shortages in certain sectors, such as hospitality. Is that the gift that she sees on offer?  If so, she needs to persuade certain of her colleagues, notably Starmer. Good luck!

Meanwhile the IPaper reports that the EU is also pressing for progress on UK re-entry into the Erasmus scheme (student exchange between the UK and the EU). Johnson pulled the UK out in 2020 because its expensive. And it would cost. But the long-term benefits of re-entry to the scheme would far outweigh the costs. Those benefits would be educational, but also social and cultural, and would nicely complement the Youth Mobility Scheme for the younger end of the age-range. Maybe the economic advantages of Youth Mobility would pay for Erasmus. That would be neat.

Youth Mobility: the story goes on.

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Blog

The headline on the Daily Express website four days ago gives a flavour of the loathing felt by some Brexiteers for the nascent EU-UK Youth Mobility Scheme. But why such antagonism?

The background to this is that the Youth Mobility Scheme, at present being negotiated between the UK and the EU, would allow a specified number of young citizens aged between 18 and 30 from each (UK and EU) to spend time working, studying or travelling in the other. The time-period is under negotiation, and looks likely to be somewhere between 2 and 4 years.  Numbers are also under negotiation and a ceiling of 50,000 has been quoted, though the talk is that Starmer still wants to negotiate that down; perhaps not by a great deal, but he needs to be seen to limit immigration whenever he can.  And Youth Mobility is vulnerable in that respect. The pressure on him from the Brexit press is unremitting. The main pressure-point around immigration -small boats- presents him still in a role of near- helplessness.  So Youth Mobility- one of the most positive possibilities of the recent rapprochement with the EU –  is in danger of falling victim to the small boats crisis.

There is too much to lose here. More than ever, we need grass-roots contact between British and EU citizens to combat the growing nationalist mood in the UK;  and we particularly need it among the young. Reform is making a successful pitch for support among young men, and there needs to be a counterbalancing experience that tells a positive story about Europe and Europeans. Of course contact with Europeans will not purify all our youth of the taint of nationalism – some of our young visitors will support the AfD and the RN – but the experience of international dialogue will nonetheless open many minds. No wonder the Express doesn’t like it.

So we can’t afford to lose on Youth Mobility. It needs to be decoupled from immigration in the public mind, presented in a different frame, associated with the positive connotations of European cities and friendly visitors. Its all about presentation. The Brexit press know that, and that’s why they are doing their best to kill it.  

After Macron, Merz

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Blog, National Events

Hot on the heels of his meeting with Macron, Starmer met with the German Chancellor  Friedrich Merz last week. Clearly a lot of talking had been done under the radar beforehand, because an agreement- the Treaty of Kensington- emerged very quickly. This covers a range of areas as follows (I quote)

  • diplomatic cooperation on broader geopolitical issues;
  • defence and security;
  • internal security and coordination on combating illegal migration;
  • economic ties, science and research cooperation;
  • fostering people-to-people contacts;
  • cooperation on energy and climate policy. 

I’m indebted to Nicolai von Ondarza of Chatham house for his analysis of the treaty. He made two further points

  1. Mutual support on defence is the ‘centre of gravity’ this treaty.
  2. Together with the Macron-Starmer agreements a few days ago, it recreates the E3 group: The UK, France and Germany. This trio has the potential to provide the hub of the (slowly) developing European security system.

Its clearly a grand plan, slowly manifesting.

However, part of the context provided by von Ondarza makes depressing reading. The UK has drifted away from Europe on many levels since 2016, and he offered two examples relating to Germany:

  • The UK dropped from Germany’s third most important trading partner in 2016 to ninth in 2024
  • school exchanges from Germany to the UK have fallen by more than 80 per cent since Brexit.

However, it looks as though someone is finally trying to reverse that.

Starmer-Macron Meeting

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Blog, National Events

The recent visit by President Macron has resulted in several agreements between France and the UK, the usefulness of which will only become clear in the longer term. One of these is the ‘one in one out’ agreement concerning the exchange of illegal migrants between the UK and France. At first sight the scale of this deal seems very modest indeed, and the fact that it seeks to address a problem that looms so large in the UK only serves to emphasize its very limited scale. But presumably it could be expanded if it works.

 And if it does work, it will perhaps vindicate Macron’s comment about Brexit, made during his visit. He said (I paraphrase) that Brexit was sold to the British public on a false claim; the claim that Brexit would give the UK more control of its own borders and, by implication, enable it to keep more people out of the country. But, Macron argued, the truth is that Brexit has in fact made the UK less able to control its borders, because border control depends on co-operation with neighbouring states (obvious when you think about it), and that co-operation was disrupted by Brexit. And that explains the increase in illegal entries since 2020. Probably Macron is right. But why did he say it? His remark seems to have been addressed to the British public, and Macron must know that he would annoy a lot of people and provoke a backlash from certain quarters. Lecturing us on our bad decisions doesn’t seem a good way to win friends and influence people this side of the channel.

One possible explanation for Macron’s remarks is that he is weak at home (having lost control of the national assembly), and he feels he needs to compensate by high-profile initiatives in foreign policy. He has two years of his second term to go, so he may also be thinking in terms of his legacy. And anyway there has always been a tension in the relationship between France and the UK, with partnership and rivalry closely intertwined. Something that annoys the British might amuse the French.  So perhaps his remarks were ultimately aimed at his own people. Overall the French are less preoccupied with illegal migrants than the British, but local opinion along the French north coast is nonetheless somewhat inflamed on the issue. The mayor of Calais was not impressed by the Macron-Starmer deal. There is a danger that it is already suffering an image problem

In the longer run, the practical effectiveness of the agreement is of enormous political importance. If a narrative can be established that closer co-operation with our neighbours does in fact improve our control of our borders, this will further discredit Brexit. For this reason, I guess, rejoiners should want it to work, and to be seen to work. And for the same reason, brexiters presumably want it to fail, and to be seen to fail. Brexiters need to establish a counter-narrative that co-operation with Europe solves nothing and compromises our sovereignty, and that European leaders are strutting popinjays who cannot be trusted and wish us ill. Farage and Philp have already started work on this. For them, this agreement needs to be discredited.  Macron’s lecturing is irritating, but it will be forgotten- or possibly vindicated. What brexiters really need is for the agreement to go badly wrong, or to seem to go badly wrong. Pro-Brexit media will buzz round it like flies on a cowpat over coming months, looking for anything that feeds their agenda. Starmer needs to talk up the agreement for all he’s worth, but tread carefully in implementing it.