Lords committee to consider drawing Europe a little closer

Lords committee to consider drawing Europe a little closer

Dec 13, 2024 | Bylines, News

Resetting relations with the EU is now firmly on the government’s agenda but the devil is in the detail, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

 

On Tuesday 10 December, the newly formed Lords European Affairs Committee held its first public meeting. Giving evidence to the committee were newly appointed EU negotiator Nick Thomas-Symonds and Europe Minister, Stephen Doughty. Whether the committee are now any the wiser about Labour’s post-Brexit ‘reset’ plans is debatable.

Labour’s three pillars

Committee chair Lord Ricketts started the meeting by asking what, exactly, the government means by their oft quoted ‘reset’ of UK/EU relations. In response, Thomas-Symonds referred to Labour’s ‘three pillars’, as mentioned in their manifesto: security, safety and growth/trade.

Regarding the UK economy, the growth and trade commitments relate to government ambitions in just three areas: an agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and visas for touring artists. Along with government aspirations on security and safety, these are worthwhile goals. But how much impact would they have on the prime minister and chancellor’s growth plans, and just when can we expect to see progress?

This is a fair report. It was symbolic, and that does matter, given recent, ahem, history. And Reeves is right to say that next year is what matters in terms of substance. But many businesses have already been screwed. So urgency is needed.
news.sky.com/story/very-s…

[image or embed]

— Chris Grey (@chrisgrey.bsky.social) 10 December 2024 at 21:08

Meetings with Europe

In recent months, UK ministers have been travelling to Brussels to extend a hand of friendship to our European neighbours, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves. This week, the chancellor became the first UK finance minister to join her EU counterparts for a “very symbolic and important” meeting. At the meeting, Reeves acknowledged the harm that Brexit deal had wrought on UK/EU trade, but re-iterated Labour’s nonsensical ‘red lines’, ruling out freedom of movement and any return to the single market and customs union. Although the visit was good for optics, and hopefully for rebuilding trust, Reeves admitted that for substance, we would have to wait until next year.

In July, Thomas-Symonds had his first meeting with EU Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič. He told the committee he would now be meeting with Šefčovič at regular intervals – perhaps as often as twice a month in the new year. However, the most “important next step” would be in setting the date for a UK/EU summit in the first half of 2025. The summit will signal the start of official negotiations between the bloc and the UK

Looking forward

When asked by the committee what we can expect by the end of this parliamentary term, Thomas-Symonds said he wanted to “look forward, not back” with regards to UK/EU relations. He described the forthcoming summit, and ongoing negotiations as a “new phase”, though was vague regarding any specific plans.

The committee then asked specifically whether the ‘reset’ process would be completed before the next election. Thomas-Symonds replied that he certainly hoped so, and that “we will certainly be looking to deliver benefits from the ‘reset’ by that point”. The so-called anticipated benefits were not named. Let’s hope they prove less of a fantasy than earlier Brexit-related promises.

 

A concession on youth mobility?

Following the committee session on Tuesday, The Independent suggested that Thomas-Symonds had opened the door to a “major concession” in the Brexit ‘reset’ talks. Discussions of the EU’s youth mobility proposal began with the committee asking why the UK government had rejected the EU’s proposal on many previous occasions. The UK’s EU negotiator simply responded that it was “not in our manifesto”.

The proposed scheme – which would allow under 30s to travel and work more easily between the UK and EU – has long been on the EU’s wish list, with detailed proposals expected in a matter of weeks. Thomas-Symonds said that the government’s response would depend on precisely what the EU means by “youth mobility”, adding that the government were “not making any assumptions about EU asks”. We have, he said, to wait and see what the EU will “put on the table”. The EU, no doubt, are similarly waiting – patiently or otherwise – to find out what it is that the UK wants.

We can only hope that this government, unlike the last one, has a better understanding of how the EU works, and what is and isn’t possible within EU rules. As for whether Thomas-Symonds has opened the door to a major concession, see for yourself and make up your own mind. Just don’t hold your breath.

‘X’ turns dark, and the Sky turns Blue

‘X’ turns dark, and the Sky turns Blue

Dec 13, 2024 | Bylines, News

The move from X to Bluesky – a lesson on how progressives can take back control, Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton writes for Yorkshire Bylines. 

There’s been much made of the mass shift from X to Bluesky, and the reaction from the disruptors, abusers and far right has been telling. There is a sense of panic because they know something we don’t admit: we, the progressives, feed them, and that is where the opportunity lies.

Although not a new idea, if enacted en masse, it could be one of the most powerful weapons that liberal progressives have. It doesn’t need any billionaire oligarchs’ funding – but more about that later.

How X went dark

Since Elon Musk bought X (formerly Twitter), the social media site has been turned into a platform for abuse, misogyny, conspiracy theories and racism. It was the site’s fast-moving, second-by-second news and its ecosystems of like-minded individuals, organisations, and followers built up over many years that held people there, but now the vilest abuse no longer gets taken down, and people can post blatant, dangerous misinformation and outrageous lies with little or no comeback. Free speech on X means freedom to abuse, threaten and lie with impunity.

We are not talking about robust debate here or differing opinions. I have been a pro-EU, anti-Brexit, and equality campaigner for many years. I engage with social media personally and have tweeted for the pro-EU group Bremain in Spain for many years, continuously engaging with opposing ideas and conflict. Still, X has now gone well beyond this and everyday discourse.

Here is a post from Dawn Butler, a black female Labour MP – these are not one-off, rare comments. She exposes these weekly. Warning – extreme racist language.

You can be financially rewarded for abuse, disinformation and racism on X

Blue ticks on Twitter/X were once a sign of a trusted account. Twitter gave ticks to journalists and verified, trustworthy organisations. Now, anyone can buy a blue tick, which increases their engagement. Their replies float to the top of threads, and no matter the quality of a posts or response, they will be rewarded because they are paying Musk for the privilege. A paid account with 50 followers could get more impressions on a reply than one with 5,000. This system has created an unequal community.

Some users on X who spend their days sharing content that includes misinformation, misogyny, AI-generated images, and unfounded conspiracy theories are paid thousands. One man who was convicted of inciting racial hatred during the UK summer race riots was earning £1,400 a month from sharing his posts on X with his 90,000 followers. Imagine what Tommy Robinson gets with his one million followers.

A recent analysis showed that 74% of the most viral Israel/Hamas war disinformation posts came from ‘verified’ blue tick accounts. These people and accounts are radicalising minds with memes. It would be funny if it weren’t so deeply sad and dangerous.

Preach. The greatest danger to democracy has always been weaponized disinformation.

Why? Because "those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" – Voltaire

And no, free speech won't save us, Germans enjoyed free speech during the rise of Nazism –>

[image or embed]

— greenplanet.bsky.social (@greenplanet.bsky.social) 7 December 2024 at 04:37

The experience on X and Bluesky is like chalk and cheese. X is more like Donald Trump’s Truth Social, and Bluesky is more like the Twitter of old, as it was originally a research initiative within Twitter, with Jack Dorsey involved until earlier this year.

It feels like X but is fundamentally different. Bluesky launched in February 2023 as an invite-only service; however, it only started to take off after Trump’s election, garnering around one million users daily.

Whilst Musk, a self-proclaimed lover of ‘free speech’ who, after a Biden tweet outperformed his, had his posts on X boosted by algorithms to get 1,000 times more reach than anyone else’s (yes,his ego is that fragile), started corrupting the space with blatant misinformation. When this and interference exploded during the US election, it was a final straw for many. Even Musk’s artificial intelligence, Grok, labelled him as one of the leading spreaders of misinformation on the social media platform.

There is no debate, and there is no nuance. Often, replies are a stream of childish one-liners, bullying, derogatory remarks and, honestly, mainly downright stupid responses. It’s now a place where angry playground bullies, with little intellect but armed with grubby fingers and a keyboard, have been elevated above all.

X has become so bad that many organisations are leaving for ethical reasons. The Guardian were amongst the first, along with the Green Party and a surge of publishers . Bluesky doesn’t penalise link sharing, and publishers report 3- 4x higher engagement and conversions on Bluesky than on other platforms.

So, what can and should we do?

As much as possible, we need to starve those who have been elevated to their positions by supporting division, dehumanisation, deceit and racism, of the oxygen that enables them to push their political discourse, which, at its core, is intentionally constructed to inflame, anger and divide us as a society. Stop and remember that your interaction will bring them financial rewards and boost their engagement. Is that what we want?

All of us who use social media for campaigning know that crossing that divide and getting traction from ‘the other side’ gives us more reach and clicks.Well, it works the other way too. Without us, their spread and engagement would sink, and they would be left to preach in their hate bubbles, speaking only to their radicalised flock

Take on the media that platforms them

If we were to take this to the next level, we shouldn’t engage online with the media outlets that feature them. Let’s take the example of the BBC having Nigel Farage on Question Time for a record-breaking 38th time. Let’s face it: they don’t host him because of journalistic integrity, his intellect, or for balance, but because divisive people drive divisive commentary between opposing sides, and therefore clicks – and these days, it’s all about the clicks. BBC Question Time social media posts get the most traction from people who disagree with him being there in the first place.

Just look at the comments on this post (which include some you may find offensive). They are almost all from people who disagree with Farage being platformed again. The clips that are then generated from the show gain even more traction.

 

Take action, feel better about yourself

Bluesky has reminded us of how things used to be before the rage and division entered our politics. The users and abusers are not there in any numbers or with power. They can come but can’t get away with posting blatant misinformation, racism, misogyny or attacking the LGBTQ communities. We don’t miss them; everyone is saying how wonderful it is. The conversation is more intellectual, thoughtful and friendly, including disagreements. Here is where we find a calm reminder that things don’t have to be like they are.

Ignoring antagonists is, I know, easier said than done. I am guilty as charged when it comes to engaging with divisive characters like Tommy Robinson, Andrew Tate, Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, etc. I have written about some of them, and of course, some, including campaigners and journalists, need to stay informed of these people’s actions.

But I also recognise and admit I am emotionally triggered by abusive content and get drawn into calling out misinformation, racism, misogyny, lies, and corruption, all the while knowing and understanding that this is what certain inflammatory posts are meant to do. We are playing right into the hands of those seeking to provoke – becoming entangled in their game with their rules. Therefore the best thing to do is block or mute so you don’t even encounter the content in the first place. Ask yourself: “Am I responding to this because I am angry? Will my comment change anything or inform anyone’s opinion, or am I just boosting this post’s engagement?” 

When it comes to engagement with some of the more extreme followers of figures like Farage or Robinson; most of us know we aren’t going to change their minds. Those who have already fallen for what many would describe as their scapegoating and othering of minority communities can be very immune to alternative points of view – especially when expressed on social media

Our political environment is now consumed by rage and anger, and we must accept we are being played into fuelling it. By commenting, we will only drive engagement on such posts and cause an adverse emotional reaction in ourselves. So, give it a go. Block, mute, and disengage. It’s a guarantee that they will miss you a lot more than you will miss them and you will feel a whole lot better for it too.

Bremainers Ask ……… Brendan Donnelly

Bremainers Ask ……… Brendan Donnelly

Nov 29, 2024 | Bremainers Ask, News

Brendan Donnelly is Director of the leading British pro-EU think tank, the Federal Trust, and leader of the Rejoin EU party. He is a former Conservative MEP but left the party over its anti-European stance.

Before becoming an MEP Brendan had worked in the UK Foreign Office and the European Commission, having studied classics at Oxford.

Steve Wilson : Do you believe it’s possible to get Labour to abandon any of its Brexit red lines during this Parliamentary term?

I do not think Labour will be able to maintain its present minimalist line on Europe throughout the whole Parliament. The failure of Brexit can only become clearer in the coming years; the probably mediocre performance of the British economy will increase pressure to pursue the obvious benefits accruing from closer economic relations with the EU; and the election of Donald Trump is likely to force the UK to choose between improving its economic ties with the EU and maintaining good political relations with Washington. Having exhausted all the alternatives, Keir Starmer will eventually be forced to move in the right direction on Europe. Domestic political pressure will help him to move further, faster.

 

Lisa Burton : Many say the EU won’t have the UK back unless there is a strong consensus across the political sphere. As a former Conservative, do you think the party can ever be persuaded to retake a pro-European stance?

Not in its present form. I do, however, think the Conservative Party is very unlikely to survive in its present form, since it is subject to political pressure both from Reform on the right and from the left by centrist parties. I expect Reform will come to dominate the right wing of British politics, but only as a marginal party, representing say 20% of the electorate. This splintering and shrivelling of the right-wing vote will make the UK’s rejoining of the EU easier.

 

Ruth Woodhouse : In terms of renewed participation in European initiatives open to non-EU members, which would you prioritise and why?

It was unnecessary for the UK to leave the Erasmus Programme, and the Conservative government only did so to please UKIP supporters, who were traditionally uneasy with the idea of young Britons being encouraged by their studies and personal experiences to think of themselves as “Europeans”. I am in favour of Erasmus for the same reasons UKIP supporters were against it

 

Michael Soffe : As a newly re-enfranchised overseas voter, I lent my vote to Labour in the last GE although you had a candidate in my constituency, to try and ensure the Tories lost. I would really rather vote for a “rejoin” party. How will you convince me? Do you believe you have the funding to field many more candidates at the next GE?

Our primary focus in the next two years is to fight and put up a creditable performance in as many elections as possible, especially Parliamentary by-elections. As a political party, we exist in order to show current mainstream politicians that there are votes in wanting to rejoin the EU. If we can do that, then new resources will very probably become available to us. How we might wish or be able to participate in the next General Election will be matter for decision nearer the time. 

John Hodges : The Tories have promised to reverse any return to the SM/CU. So, if Labour were to negotiate a return to the SM and maybe the CU as well (admittedly a big ‘if’ at the moment), can safeguards be put in place to prevent the Tories doing so easily?

I am not sure that it will be possible to negotiate a return to the SM/CU without rejoining the EU as a whole. It might well seem to our EU partners that once again the UK was “cherry-picking.” If there were some new arrangement between the EU and UK which approximated to membership of the Single Market, there could be no guarantee against a determined later government unpicking this arrangement. The best guarantee of British seriousness about the European Union would be for us to rejoin whole-heartedly, including membership of the Euro, from which it is very difficult to exit easily.

 

Anne Parry : As defence and security are still national competencies, would it make sense for the UK to seek to reset relations with EU member states on military issues, given the threat that Russia and their autocratic allies pose to our freedom?

Yes indeed, but it should not be supposed that this enhanced co-operation will pave the way for British re-entry into the EU. A better general bilateral atmosphere between the EU and UK will not resolve the question of British willingness or otherwise to accept sovereignty-pooling within the EU’s spheres of competence and to respect the legitimate roles of the EU’s central institutions.  

 

David Eldridge : Do you think Trump’s victory will force the UK government to seek closer ties to the EU quicker than planned?

Trump divides the world into his enemies and his friends. From his friends he demands unconditional loyalty, for very little in return. Trump has never concealed his contempt for the European Union. It may be tempting for the Labour government to believe it can be friends with Donald Trump, without abandoning its hopes of “resetting” its relationship with the EU. This is a delusion. Starmer will have to choose between an American orientation for the UK and a European orientation. The unpopularity of Trump and of his most prominent British supporter Nigel Farage with the British electorate would make the American option electorally suicidal for Starmer. 

Bremainers Ask ……. Phil Moorhouse

Bremainers Ask ……. Phil Moorhouse

Nov 1, 2024 | Bremainers Ask, News

Phil is a former STEM teacher who has been interested in politics from a very young age. He brought his political discussions to YouTube in late 2018, when it became clear that Brexit was killing Parliament’s ability to do anything productive and has been discussing his take on the key issues ever since. 

Phil’s YouTube channel, A different bias, is dedicated to discussing the implications of political news and has 197,000 followers.

Tracy Rolfe: Do you think the UK will eventually rejoin the EU? If so, when and how do you think it will happen?

Yes, unless the EU does actually collapse as the Daily Express is hoping, I think rejoining is inevitable. The vast majority of opposition to EU membership is loaded into older people and it’s not a view that becomes more prevalent as you get older, as some political issues do. This is part of a very specific generation of people. So, if nothing else, as time passes, the electorate becomes more pro-EU, the politicians personally linked with Brexit disappear from the scene, and the new leaders have no baggage, we will eventually see the benefits.

However, I’m not a fan of achieving political change through a patient game of waiting for millions of people to die off, so I’d rather we pressed the issue more quickly. Peter Mandelson recently said that he thought we might be getting ready to apply in about ten years. I certainly think that if Labour are to achieve their economic aims, then achieving more growth will have to include breaking down the most obvious trade barriers.

Valerie Chaplin : What do you think of Keir Starmer’s attitude towards Brexit and his slogan ‘Make Brexit Work’?

First of all, Keir Starmer was the most recognisable voice against Brexit as far as the public were concerned. He did not get kicked in the head by a horse when he became Labour leader. His change of position reflected the change in our EU status. Not that his real beliefs on EU membership matter, more what his Government will do.

The “Make Brexit Work” slogan is as meaningless as any other political slogan. It can simply mean that he is going to get our economy in shape outside the EU. But, of course, it will always be hampered by trade barriers as a result of being outside the SM and CU. What Starmer is trying to agree with the EU in practice actually represents the steps which would need to be taken if we rejoined at least the single market. As such, I see no difference between his policies and the policies of someone who was openly talking about joining the SM or EU proper. Of course, he might not achieve them, but we don’t qualify to join the SM or EU right now anyway.

Lisa Burton : What do you think of Boris Johnson’s comments in recent interviews regarding Brexit, particularly it ‘being an argument he wanted to win’ and his continuing blame game?

We know that the real reason Boris Johnson championed Brexit was for political power. He did not believe that he could become Conservative leader, and therefore Prime Minister, without the support of Tory MPs described by a former party chair as ‘swivel eyed loons.’ They wanted Brexit, so he thought that if he became the banner bearer for Brexit, he could win their support.

It’s believed that he did not expect the leave campaign to win, and so did not think he would actually have to deal with the consequences – simply benefit from the support of Brexiteers when David Cameron stepped down, which he was going to do during the second Parliament anyway.

It’s been clear throughout that Boris Johnson understands nothing about the EU, the single market, the customs union or even what a non-tariff barrier actually is. We’ve also seen that he simply does or says whatever he thinks he needs to do in order to deal with tricky problems in the short term with no thought for the long term. So, whatever Boris Johnson decides to say was his reasoning for getting behind Brexit, it was only ever a device to have the easiest possible path to becoming Prime Minister.

Michael Soffe : Earlier in the year you quoted Tory MP Paul Scully as saying a new referendum on Brexit would result in the vote being reversed. Do you believe there will be a further referendum and if so, presumably way down the road? How do we convince the public that we need one?

I believe that we will apply to rejoin the EU, and a referendum is the only credible way of doing that now. I would suggest that in order to maximise the chances of success, we actually have two referenda included in the legislation, as we should have done before. We know that issues like currency will be a big worry for people, but that it’s also possible to negotiate opt-outs, though we can’t expect everything we had before.

So, we should have one referendum which only gives the Government the authority to apply for membership, and then a second referendum, once the terms are agreed, which the public use to give final approval.

But, to persuade the public, we need them to realise that Brexit trade barriers are the cause of problems like getting NHS medicines and staff, food which is less fresh, higher costs of goods and some services. So, we need an official economic assessment of being outside the EU/SM/CU.

Mike Fitzgerald : If you were in a position of power, what would be your approach to a “reset with the EU”? And do you think a ‘reset’ can lay foundations for a future rejoin?

So, we have to be mindful of two things when it comes to closer moves to the EU. The first is that a significant number of key voters are still not convinced Brexit is bad, and the second is that the Conservatives will loudly proclaim that they will reverse any major alignment with the EU that Labour implements.

So, although I think my approach would be a bit different to Starmer’s, I don’t think it would be very far away. When EU policy experts criticise Labour’s moves it tends to be along the lines of being clear about what they want from the EU. We know Labour wants a veterinary deal, mutual recognition of qualifications and a deal that sounds very like freedom of movement for performers. But Labour haven’t been clear about the precise details, or what they think we can agree to give the EU in return.

So, I would say that I think what I would do in power is to have those detailed proposals worked out as a priority so that there was the basis for discussion. I would also have bitten their hand off at the prospect of re-joining Erasmus, because nobody wanted us to leave.

Lawrence Renaudon Smith : There is a lot of discussion about university students and Erasmus etc., but I hear very little about the effect Brexit is having on the attitudes and education of schoolchildren. Are they becoming more inward-looking and nativist due to Brexit? Gen Z are pro-EU membership, but are Gen Alpha going to see other Europeans as “the foreigners”? 

I’m not a sociologist, but I don’t think the next generation will be anti-EU. Anti-EU sentiment worked largely on people who were lied to on the basis that bad things in the country were blamed on the EU. This doesn’t work on a generation entering adulthood outside the EU. I would also say Brexit sentiment worked well on many older people because of classic nostalgia. You think things were better when you were young and ascribe it to society being better at the time. In reality, it’s because you were young, fit and healthy, and didn’t have to grunt every time you got out of a chair.

Again, this doesn’t really work on the youngest because their young, fit and healthy times are in the Brexit years. I gather the younger generation use the word Brexit to mean something that’s been cocked up. I think they’ll be pro-EU on balance.

Helen Johnston : Most recent surveys show that Labour Party members and voters believe Brexit was wrong for the country and would like to see more progress on the UK moving closer to Europe. Do you get the impression that the Labour leadership is listening to its grassroots at all, e.g. at the recent party conference?

So, Labour are listening to the grassroots, but we vote for them even when they’re losing. They have to listen more closely to key swing voters and, as a Labour member, I want them to do that. But people also misrepresent polls as well. A clear majority do believe Brexit was wrong, but that’s not the same as wanting a Government to say we will rejoin.

We know that more people would like to rejoin than stay out, but when you ask even if that means adopting the euro, all of a sudden, the answer goes the other way. The issue is also less salient for pro-EU voters than pro-Brexit voters. Finally, the moment we ask to join the SM or EU, the Conservatives will say they would scrap it when they come back to power. So, the EU will not waste its time when it has so many other priorities.

We will know when the public really wants back in the EU because the Conservatives will have to start talking about it seriously. There are currently zero Conservative MPs doing so. There was Tobias Elwood in the last Parliament, standing alone, but he’s gone now.

Fi Cooper : What do you think about the future of farming and fishing if Labour continues to refuse to join the CU and SM?

Fishing and farming both seem to have very different attitudes towards Brexit. If reports are to believed, there was overwhelming support for a hard Brexit from fishermen, who are now moaning that they have been screwed over, and yet they still insist that the hard Brexit is the right decision. I don’t know what you can do to help an industry that doesn’t understand that it was never going to get access to the EU market (where most British caught fish goes) whilst denying access to EU fishing vessels.

Farming is different, because many farmers did understand the damage that would be caused and, I think, welcome any moves that ease trade barriers, including rejoining. They will also be keen on the veterinary agreement, if the Government can arrange it.

There is also currently a risk that, without proper standards controls, which we still do not have, that we are at a higher than acceptable risk of importing a disease which could devastate whole sections of our farming industry.

But without help, there’s a worry they will have to scale back, meaning we are forced to import yet more food, or farm more intensively.

NEXT MONTH

Brendan Donnelly is Director of the leading British pro-EU think tank, the Federal Trust, and leader of the Rejoin EU party. He is a former Conservative MEP but left the party over its anti-Europeanism.

If you have a question for Brendan, please email us no later than Friday 8 November.

Brendan Donnelly
A new APPG for a new era of European engagement

A new APPG for a new era of European engagement

Oct 25, 2024 | Bylines, News

The recent change of government offers hope of a new era for UK/EU relations and the launch of a new APPG, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

When the new Labour government came to power in July, they made the decision not to re-establish the European scrutiny committee. The committee – whose role was to scrutinise new EU laws, schemes and proposals, and the impact they could have on the UK – was now considered surplus to requirements. Thankfully, others had other ideas.

New APPG on Europe

This week a new all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on Europe – co-chaired by Dr Rosenna Allin-Khan MP (Labour) and Lord Kirkhope (Conservative) – met for the first time. The group’s aims are to “discover areas of mutual co-operation and interest” and examine the relationship between the UK and the EU. Whilst they won’t have the authority or status of a parliamentary select committee, they will have a voice, and one that hopefully the government is willing to listen to.

The APPG will meet six times a year, with European Movement UK (EMUK) acting as secretariat. Dr Mike Galsworthy, chair of EMUK said the new group would herald a “fresh new era of European engagement”:

“At European Movement UK, we’re delighted to be the secretariat supporting this important forum. EMUK was founded 75 years ago, in parliament, as cross-party group looking to advance the relationship of the UK with our European neighbours. So, having recently built up our staff team and capacity substantially, coming back to parliament to inaugurate and facilitate this important cross-party parliamentary group feels like both a homecoming and a fresh new era of European engagement.”

Lord Kirkhope said the government’s decision to abolish the European scrutiny committee, and its new approach to UK–EU relations, made the formation of the new APPG “crucial”:

“It will allow us to assess policies as they evolve and apply a positive, pragmatic approach to our relationship with Europe. We’ve bilateral ties with many European countries, but what’s been lacking is a broader, strategic view of our relationship with the EU as a whole. I’m confident this new group will play a key role in offering constructive input and help guide the government and others as we navigate this evolving landscape.”

The role of the APPG

Unlike parliamentary select committees, APPGs have no official status within parliament but are run by and for members of the Commons and Lords and may involve individuals and organisations from outside parliament. The involvement in this case of EMUK will no doubt ensure that the government’s “reset” of UK/EU relations is closely scrutinised, whether the government is in favour of closer examination or not.

Starting in January 2025, the APPG will meet bi-monthly, with each meeting focusing on a different topic. January’s meeting will focus on collecting evidence regarding security and defence. Future meetings will cover other policy areas including science, technology and trade.

“Encouraging sign”

When Foreign Secretary David Lammy recently visited Brussels to meet the council of foreign ministers, Lord Kirkhope said he was “very much encouraged”. Despite the fact that as non-EU members the UK “couldn’t fully participate”, it was a step forward to have been invited at all, and to have attended. Lord Kirkhope described the meeting as an “encouraging sign of a warming of our relationship with the EU” and said “important discussions about the future security of Europe” were being held.

Both the prime minister and the foreign secretary have been keen to point out the improvement in relations with our European counterparts, and the change is most welcome. What is less clear is what the government’s ‘reset’ plan is and how exactly they plan to “make Brexit work”. As Lord Kirkhope said recently, we “still don’t have any clear idea of what their European policy is going to be”. Hopefully, the government knows more than the rest of us.

UK–EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

When the Brexit trade and cooperation agreement (TCA) became effective in May 2021, it was supported by an inter-parliamentary institution – the EU–UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (PPA) – brought together from members of the UK parliament and the European parliament. With a new European parliament in place, the PPA has since been reformed on the EU side and a new chair, Sandro Gozi, was appointed on 3 October.

On the British side, no action has been taken as yet to appoint new members or to participate. However, Labour ministers have assured Lord Kirkhope that the government is “going to reappoint” and is going to “participate in this assembly”. With the TCA due for review in 2026, hopefully the government will do so soon.

The UK needs more than a ‘reset’

When Dr Allin-Khan was elected as chair of the APPG, she spoke of how the group would “build a positive relationship with our European counterparts, working on our shared interests and values”. Those are sentiments that even our prime minister and foreign secretary would presumably wholeheartedly support. Where they differ, I suspect, is in their willingness to confront the Brexit elephant in the room and to deal with the very real damage that Brexit continues to cause.

Despite changing public opinion and strong economic evidence, the government seems to think they know better than the financial experts warning of ongoing economic harm. Or they know the truth but are too afraid of the consequences of any remedial actions they might take.

Brexit needs to be scrutinised. From the loss of trade to the loss of rights. From the lack of workers to the lack of global authority. From the cost of food to the cost of inaction. The list is endless.

The launch of the APPG is a welcome move that should help parliamentarians and the public better understand and accept the realities of Brexit and the need for prompt action. For those who already understand Brexit yet do nothing, we can only hope that closer scrutiny will force them to ‘reset’ their own thinking and act accordingly in the interests of the country. Before too much more damage can be done.