Tag: politics

Happy New Year for 2026!

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Uncategorized

Happy New Year to everyone. I guess this is a time to look back in order to look forward. So what were the ups and downs of 2025 for rejoiners? First, and most important, the relationship between UK and the EU stands in a very different place today from the beginning of 2025. And, on the whole, its a much better place. As is often the case, a common adversary brought the parties closer together. To add to our longtime nemesis, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, we now have a the threat of MAGA, embodied by Trump and Vance, whose attitude to Europe is increasingly defined by hostility and contempt. Vance unleashed his bile at a meeting of European leaders in February and subsequently reiterated his views in various places. Trump has followed this up at the end of the year with further denunciations, and with the publication of his  ‘National Security Strategy’, which effectively threatens to intervene in Europe’s politics in favour of far-right parties.

This continuous drumbeat of hostility no doubt helped to push the EU and UK toward a closer relationship. We had the UK/EU summit in May, which followed on from the 2024 Windsor Framework in mapping out areas of closer co-operation. That meeting seems to have been productive, and common interests were agreed relating to key areas such as health standards for food imports, and youth mobility.

Starmer followed this up in July with bilateral meetings, first with Macron, then with Mertz. Again in each case they were clearly working for a closer relationship. The Macron meeting produced the ‘one in one out’ agreement for the movement of asylum seekers. So far this has yielded very modest results. The Mertz meeting produced the grandly-named Kensington Treaty which, to quote the Deutsch-Britische gesellshcaft……

‘…. includes agreements on topics such as security and defence, the economy, energy and climate protection, migration, science, digitalisation, state modernisation and exchanges between citizens. With regard to the mobility of young people, it was agreed, among other things, to reintroduce visa-free travel for school classes and thus facilitate school trips.’

So, pretty wide-ranging. This, (unlike the Macron/Starmer takeaway) is inevitably going to be a slow-burn process, but if the governments  keep up their commitment, it could yield important results.  There was a good deal of media talk at the time about the revival of a ‘core’ alliance of UK, France and Germany as a fulcrum for wider European security co-operation. It remains to be seen whether that grows legs.

But not everything went swimmingly. As our relationship to the EU gets closer,  so that closeness triggered negatives like mutual suspicion, competition and incomprehension. These showed themselves in the current state of our common defence investment negotiations with the EU, which are at something of an impasse, evidently a result of the old chestnut, Anglo-French rivalry. This will not be easy to resolve, but it will have to be resolved, and soon. There are also tensions over the shape and extent of the Youth Mobility arrangements under discussion, and over its relationship to the agreement of common veterinary standards for food and livestock. The path is not a smooth one.

On the other hand, the great positive of the year is our return to the Erasmus+ programme, which opens the Higher Education Institutions of Europe to UK students (and vice versa). This is scheduled for 2027. In the long term this is a crucial cultural achievement. It ensures that a new generation of young Britons will experience Europe as part of their natural home territory. Its an exciting development, but, paradoxically, its best outcome will be for study in the EU to become unexciting, routine and ordinary for the younger generation. When that happens, we are getting somewhere.

And throughout the year there has been a steady drizzle of evidence of the economic damage that Brexit is doing to the UK; evidence provided by the BBC (trying hard to be neutral), the Bank of England, the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Centre for Business Prosperity and many others.

On the local front, Derby branch members leafletted in Derby and Belper during 2025. On this website branch members also admonished Starmer for ignoring the petition to hold a referendum on EU membership, and warned him of the dangers of a hasty trade deal with the US. Subsequent events have certainly vindicated that.

So maybe the path ahead into 2026 is a little clearer, but it remains steep and treacherous.

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 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.

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.  

UK/EU Conference

by stephenwilmot1, posted in National Events

The outcomes of yesterday’s UK/EU conference clearly represent a major move in the right direction. It’s the first time since 2016 that the negotiation process between the UK and the EU has amounted to anything more than hostilities, or (more recently) damage limitation.

Best for Britain’s summary of yesterday’s results is as follows (I quote)

“Easier travel: British holidaymakers will be able to skip queues at border control using EU eGates (and bring their pets on holiday with them).

Youth opportunities: A new youth mobility scheme and re-entry to student exchange programme Erasmus+ is on the horizon.

Cheaper food: Red tape is being cut, keeping food standards high, helping lower food prices and reducing waste.

Working in Europe: Progress is being made on recognising professional qualifications and supporting artists and business travellers.

A Security and Defence Partnership: Support for Ukraine, access to the EU’s €150 billion defence fund, and deeper cooperation on crime and pandemic preparedness.

Lower bills: Energy market cooperation that could cut household costs.”

Best for Britain’s tone is optimistic, and rightly so; we need enthusiasm now to keep the momentum carrying us forward to a more complete reconnection with Europe. And we must not allow ourselves to be unnerved by the ferocity of the Tories and Reform in their denunciations. Reform have already threatened to reverse everything that has been achieved, just as soon as they can. The Tories will doubtless threaten the same. It is hardly surprising that the EU regards the UK with considerable caution, with those voices dominating our political discourse. And it is clearly crucial that the new agreement be seen to work for the benefit of the British people. The realising of those benefits will expose Reform and the Tories for the wreckers they are.

Vance’s Speech at Munich

by stephenwilmot1, posted in Blog

US Vice President Vance’s speech to the Munich security conference last week came as something of a shock, not only because of its undisguised hostility to Europe, but also because of the basis of that hostility. The speech was focused on ‘culture war’ issues around  immigration, reproductive rights and religious dissent. Vance’s claim, that these internal issues were somehow a bigger threat to Europe than Vladimir Putin, was frankly bizarre. My reading of Vance’s book ‘Hillbilly Elegy’ indicated that Vance is a balanced, thoughtful and humane man. However, his Munich speech suggests a very different person. We don’t know how far Trump had vetted his speech beforehand, but there have been no visible repercussions since, so we can take it that he approved it, before or after, as the Trump administration’s view of Europe.

There are several possible explanations for the speech, some of them not mutually exclusive. Let me run through a few, with ratings:

  • ‘Tough Love’ shock therapy to get Europe to pay more for its defence.  But that doesn’t stack up. Vance actually minimized the external threats to Europe, telling us that we are our own worst enemies. 2/10
  • A sincere exhortation to Europe to converge with Trump and Vance’s version of the US: Christian, conservative and white. Vance would certainly be the right man to put that case, as he seems to really believe in that version of America. For Trump its just a vote-winner. But the hectoring hostility of the speech surely casts doubt on that explanation. 3/10
  • A signal to Europe’s far right that they have a friend in America. That has a little more credibility. Far right governments in Europe would be more compliant with US policy than the present incumbents; But the far right would be even more compliant with Russian policy. Do Trump and Vance realise that? 5/10
  • A signal to Vladimir Putin that the US is no longer a friend to Europe, so no longer its protector against Putin’s ambitions. Yes, that certainly has more credibility. Even Vance’s language echoes some of Putin’s anti-liberal rants. 7/10
  • A pre-justification exercise, casting Europe as unstable and corrupt. By implication that makes Europe unfit to be included in the Ukraine negotiations. This explanation probably comes top on credibility, now that Trump has started negotiating with Putin about Ukraine. Without Europe. 9/10

Whatever the intention, the speech clearly signals a widening ideological gulf between the US and the present political order in Europe. If we put this alongside Trump’s territorial demands and threats against Canada and Denmark, its fairly clear that the NATO alliance is a dead letter. The US is recasting itself as an adversary to most of its former allies. Its tone is aggrieved and predatory.

NATO was founded on the assumption of US leadership, and has worked on that basis for 75 years. It’s hard to imagine how that could be unpicked if the US turns rogue. A fresh start is the logical response, though the practical challenges of that are huge. The only pre-existing institutional arrangement that includes most (not all) of the other NATO members is the EU, which in institutional terms is completely unsuited to being the framework for a miliary alliance. But there is no obvious alternative, other than a return to 1930’s Europe, with small states jockeying for position, and short-lived two or three-state alliances, mostly being picked off and gobbled up by Hitler or Stalin in the end. Not a good model.

Stephen Wilmot