All blogs

Former Deputy Prime Minister Lord Heseltine spoke to a full house at European Movement UK’s event at Conservative Party Conference in Manchester.

Lord Heseltine is a Patron of European Movement UK and his speech is in full below:

"At the start of World War II President Roosevelt was forced by his Republican opponents to agree that America would not take part.

"Hitler then made the unbelievable mistake of challenging America's sovereignty by attacking the convoys upon which we depended before they reached the open sea. I have been privileged to live since then within the safety and security of the pax Americana that one President after another has sustained since they helped us to secure victory in 1945.

"The United Nations with its wide spread of social and cultural agencies; Marshall aid to help fund the post war rebuilding of Europe; and the NATO alliance to ensure it could not happen again. I gave a speech in tribute to all this in 1986 called ‘An alliance not an Empire’.

"There are other uncomfortable memories from the end of the 1930s. The rise of fascism found its followers from the top to the bottom of European society in Germany, Italy and Spain, whilst Mosely marched his followers through London's East end. It required Churchill's iron determination to stop his conservative colleagues seeking peace with Hitler.

"When World War II ended the universal view was that it must never be allowed to happen again.

“Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, who later became French Prime Minister, were amongst the most influential Europeans who created the European coal and Steel Community. Churchill articulated the idea with the words ‘we must create a kind of united states of Europe’. Note his words; he said ‘We’ not ‘They’. Harold Macmillan set us off on our controversial post- imperial journey; Ted Heath secured our accession to the treaty of Rome. Margaret Thatcher's greatest achievement was to help create the European single market; John Major secured the Maastricht compromise that prevented free movement and kept us out of the single currency.

"I worked for them all and remain convinced of the arguments in favour of Europe. If the conservatives want to return to power they would do well to remember what our party achieved then.

"I am dismayed by the drift of events in world politics. the economic collapse of 2008 and the covid crisis have seriously contributed to the lack of confidence in governments and the right wing equivalents to the fascists of the thirties are back on the march: Le Pen in France, AfD in Germany, Fdl in Italy, Vox in Spain and conspicuously Reform in this country. Much of President Trump's language in America coincides with words here in Europe. The immigrant has replaced the Jew as the problem which needs a solution, although recent events here have cast a dark shadow.

"There is no question that we need effective control of our borders but we must recognise that they are Europe's too, and we should join them in creating secure frontiers everywhere.

"But first let us understand the nature, motive and scale of what we all face. The cell-phone is available worldwide. Our living standards, whilst criticised here. are much higher than in many other parts of the world. That simple reality, together with the consequences of global warming which is threatening coastal communities and scorching inland areas will increase pressures on all our borders. The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers want to share in our standards, and to escape from persecution or civil war. To describe them as thieves or rapists is not just dishonest but encourages the worst sort of prejudice in our communities. If you want further proof just visit any part of our health services, social services, public or private sector offices or academia.

"Let us get a sense of perspective into our analysis. Last year 950,000 immigrants entered our country of which 50,000 - about one in twenty - crossed the channel in small boats. It is the latter, of course, headlined in the daily press that serve as a continuing indication of the much wider problem. If not one single boat reached these shores it would hardly touch the underlying problems facing our workforce; and the demand for a constant supply of overseas workers.

"Recent statistics show that our workforce is shrinking by 5,000 workers a day who are moving into long term inactivity. Add to this the growing number of retired citizens who are also inactive and this problem can only get worse. If we are serious about drastically reducing legal immigration then we are going to have to find people from within our own society to fill the jobs which overseas workers are now doing. The present level of social security means that for many people there is little incentive to enter full time employment. There is also a black economy.

"The introduction of identity cards could play a part if employers had to check people's right to be in this country before employing them. There are many local jobs that need doing and a more effective management of the unemployment system could link social security with undertaking one of these. I wrote a pamphlet in the 1980s called No time for Ostriches advocating this idea.

"Most of us carry a plethora of cards: driving licence, credit and debit cards, the new health service cards - all of which carry many personal details; and many of us have passports. As the technological revolution continues to unfold it is logical to make an identity card mandatory for those citizens so that, in our labour force, there is a condition of carrying a card to qualify for work, health, and social services. This would, incidentally, make working casually for cash, thus avoiding paying tax, more difficult and reduce those who thrive in the black economy, a natural home for illegal immigrants.

"I have no faith in the present government’s ability to rebuild our economy but expect it will stumble along for the next four years. I want the conservatives back in power.

"It was a privilege beyond measure for me to serve in the conservative government that was elected in 1979 and led our country for 18 continuous years. That government - first under Margaret Thatcher- has been portrayed as a right wing administration, but however much that may suit the more zealous of my colleagues the truth was often very different.

"I think my experiences in introducing development corporations building anew the east end of London and at the same time acting as a sort of clerk of works in restoring confidence to Liverpool must rank as the most interventionist ministerial experience in peacetime ever. The point is that it was all under Margaret's careful eye. I remember no criticism from her. Indeed she called the cabinet to a political meeting for me to expand on the interventionist managerial techniques I was using to run my department. I ran the numbers employed down from 52,000 to 39,000 in three years simply by controlling recruitment. By taking a personal interest I discovered that for every 10 officials that retired in the normal course of things we needed to replace six. The only thing necessary was to seek detailed information about what every official was doing and cost it. That requires management techniques unfamiliar to ministers, many of whom had never run anything in their careers. She then promoted me to the far more challenging task of managing the defence budget; she was much more practical than doctrinal.

"I want to see the election of another Tory government. I believe there are five broad issues that they must address. the defence of the realm; the restoration of strength and confidence in our economy; the rule of law; the threat to our environment from pollution, global warming and climate change; and the restoration of British influence in the world.

"This is an agenda that should appeal to the younger electorate that will be in place by the next election.

“It is time that the Conservative party wakes up to the reality of the changing views of that electorate. As I prepare this speech, the latest YouGov poll puts the conservatives on 16 points; one ahead of the LibDems; 6 points behind Labour and 13 behind Reform. It is a long way to the next election but there is danger in a strategy that is mixing up the immigration problem with our wider relations with our European neighbours. The danger is clearly revealed in another set of polls. The number of people aged below 50 who think it was right for us to leave Europe is less than 20 percent and with the 18 to 24 year olds it is only 13 percent. The new cohort of 16/17 year olds will reinforce this position, but only if we ensure that they are properly informed. Overall, the latest polls tell us that 56 per cent now believe it was a mistake to leave. Only 31 per cent believe it was right. The tide is turning.

"A stark warning comes when you look at the age group of the present conservative supporters and see how weighted it is towards older voters. If the conservative party ever hopes for re-election, it must remember its previous successful periods in Government, build on those successes - and the policies that achieved them.

"It will require courage; the country is living beyond its means. Many people will not like the necessary changes. The local revaluations I introduced in 1990 are now seriously out of date and thus deprive Local Government of much needed resources. There are opportunities to introduce a wider range of purchase tax bands that could raise funds from products that contribute to obesity, damage the environment or fuel the gambling boom.

"Local charges, with appropriate dispensations, could raise money from tourists, as all of us who travel abroad know when we visit cultural institutions abroad.

"Much the most effective cost free way to galvanise our economy is to build on the tried and tested methods to attract additional expenditure on the back of what is already included in the Public Expenditure programmes. We have made progress in overturning the top heavy apparatus of government in this country by the creation of mayors. The Government should simply have completed this by abolishing the districts and unitaries within the counties and establishing mayoralties everywhere. Then they should create a single pot of money, made up of the £10 billions that are in the various capital budgets of the spending departments and invite the mayors to bid for the money they need for locally based strategies. They would have to state how much extra funding this would enable them to deliver. It would have the effect of galvanising local people in the Universities, quangos, private companies and overseas investors to use the money targeted at the strengths and opportunities relevant to each local economy. Whitehall and the Treasury will not like this and will be unwilling to accept the argument that every country like ours shows how effective a process this is.

"There are numerous examples of how experiments here have delivered results. It is particularly depressing that two of the Conservatives who did so much to reinvigorate local Government, Greg Clark as Secretary of State and Andy Street as Mayor of Birmingham, have not been elevated to the House of Lords.

The most extreme example is that, when I set up the London Docklands corporation they were able to raise ten pounds of private money for every pound of public money they spent.

"It is almost certainly too much to expect this Labour government to reverse its tax policies which are driving the rich overseas, threatening the farming community and destroying the incentives for the small and medium private companies to grow.

"We must not abandon the shared laws of Europe. The scantiest knowledge of European history and our role in it is a story of one war after another. Between states, alliances of states and ultimately across much of the continent itself. It was a story of political failure where dialogue and negotiation was replaced by bloodshed largely of generations younger than those in charge. In one of his most famous speeches Winston Churchill at Zurich in 1946 called for a Council of Europe and a Charter of Human Rights. This country was the first to ratify the Charter before it came into force in 1953 It was the first legally binding international human rights treaty.

"The court itself came into existence in 1959 with the British Lord McNair as its first President. The UK has had a British judge ever since as one of the 46 judges representing the 46 signatories. In the event that a case is brought concerning the UK that British judge will be involved in the proceedings. If any changes are required, the worst thing is to walk out and turn our back on one of the most civilised of European creations. The right way is to follow David Cameron’s example and seek change by agreement as he did in 2012 with the Brighton Declaration. It is more than possible that the widespread concerns about asylum seekers across Europe would make review welcome to many signatories.

"The threat from global warming must not be ignored in the hope that it may not happen or because there is a backlash against the cost. The Climate Change Act 2008 was prepared by the conservative opposition led by David Cameron. So comprehensive was the parliamentary support that Gordon Brown agreed to accept it as a government bill which was passed with only five dissenting votes. The Act set up the Climate Change Committee. This committee has been supported by our party and indeed on its recommendation we passed into law the Net Zero target by 2050. We should be proud of our role in the battle to halt climate change. It was Margaret Thatcher who gave one of the starkest and earliest warnings of the dangers. Today the evidence in storms, coastal erosion, flooding, fire and the spread of desert is all too clear. It would be an act of unforgivable irresponsibility to undo all that Conservatives have done to play a leading role in this world threatening crisis.

"European companies need the same scale of research and development support as available to their competitors in America, China and, increasingly, India. That cannot be done by nation states working alone. Airbus is the clearest example of how cooperation can challenge the world.

"I am proud to have introduced blocking shares into Rolls Royce after the conservatives rescued the company in the 1970s and again later in British Aerospace. I took the initiative to bring European space research together under the European Space Agency in 1973 and secured for Britain leadership in satellite technology.

"Typhoon aircraft are now patrolling Polish air space and I am proud that it was a British led consortium including Germany, Italy and Spain that developed and built them. I came face to face with the reality of the competition our companies have to face in 1984 when the American general responsible for President Reagan's star wars missile shield came to see me when I was Defence Secretary. 'I have a 29 billion dollar budget' he said 'and I can place £100m of that with your Heriot Watt university where they are at the leading edge of some particular technology'. He was travelling the world entering partnerships at the frontiers of technology. All to go back to silicon valley where it could be used by America's companies. Only European cooperation can keep us in that league.

"We must play a leading part in building a more effective European military capability within NATO and prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine. There can be little doubt that the West was asleep on the job as Putin attacked Ukraine. First he annexed Crimea: nothing happened. I can hear his generals saying 'Go on Vladimir - they won't do anything'.

"They were right. He stirred up the Donetsk and we still did nothing. 'We told you so,’ said the generals. He put the troops in and at last NATO did react. But President Trump's over-friendly relationship with Putin has raised the urgent requirement to form a more coordinated European military capability in NATO. If Europe really had to act in the absence of the US, do we really know who is in charge and how quickly they could assume command? There is also a need for more effective procurement policies to get longer production lines and more coordination on the battlefield. Left to their own devices and their own pattern of customers the individual national companies will not do this without leadership from governments.

“Above all we must make clear that we will never have any part in the populist extremism of Nigel Farage.

“We have to deal with President Trump for the next 3 years. We don't need his mouthpiece anywhere near Number 10."

Following months of internal divisions within the party, leader of the Conservatives Kemi Badenoch announced that her party would "take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if they win the next election".

The ECHR plays a vital role in instilling equality in the eyes of the law, promoting compassion for those fighting tyranny, and upholding the fundamental human rights we all take for granted. To withdraw from the ECHR would, for example, risk unravelling the gains of a decades-long peace process between The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Dominic Grieve KC, co-president of European Movement UK and former Attorney General, said:

"The advice received by Kemi Badenoch shows clearly that leaving the ECHR will come at great cost. It will end at minimum all security co-operation with the EU and probably the TCA itself with all the economic implications that come from this.

"Despite the attempts in the advice to wriggle round reality, it is plainly in breach of the Good Friday agreement, an international treaty that underpins the Northern Ireland peace process.

"All this is for very little benefit. The advice is honest enough to point out that leaving does not solve all the problems of deporting criminals and remaining failed asylum seekers. The reality is however starker. It is largely peripheral to these issues. By leaving we will damage ourselves and our international standing and the electorate will see almost no impact on dealing with illegal immigration."

We have launched an open letter, addressed to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, demanding that Britain must remain in the ECHR.

Sign the open letter now.

As the new Secretary of State for Defra, Emma Reynolds will need to hit the ground running to calm the nerves of all the stakeholders that Defra deals with.

Businesses, farmers and green groups alike have had cause for concern in recent months as Defra has appeared to be side-lined in matters of major concern, whether it’s the Treasury and farming, or planning and nature. So, with a background in one and with Steve Reed (hopefully a new ally) in the other, will Reynolds set a new course, or is she here to tighten the ship?

She will be looking for ways to make her name and, within the scope of her role, to carve out some clear water from her predecessor.

Executive Director of The Institute for European Environmental Policy UK (IEEP), Ben Reynolds (no relation to the new Secretary of State), explores where she could make her mark.

Closer cooperation with the EU

With Reynolds’ background working as a lobbyist in Brussels, and vocal support for the EU, she should appreciate the and understand how to navigate its structures more than most. Much of May’s UK-EU reset will fall to her department to deliver, from fishing agreements to veterinary agreements, and in improving the flow of agri-food trade.

With these will also come the discussions on alignment of certain standards – with the UK already giving ground to align with EU pesticide standards, and apparently keen to carve out a derogation to keep new legislation on genetic modification passed under the last Government.

Aligning on such standards requires a close relationship to ensure a good flow of technical knowledge, and the new Secretary of State could build on the agreement for limited access to EU agencies, cementing this with more formal relationships where possible. Whilst most require EU membership, some do not. Rejoining the EEA and Eionet will both be symbolic of the UK’s genuine desire for a reset and will practically help with the flow of environmental data cut-off since Brexit, which would enable the UK to better understand how effective its environmental policies are in the wider European context.

Use COP to announce UK deforestation legislation

The current Government has been silent on the legal commitment to bring forward legislation on Forest Risk Commodities (FRC) promised under the Environment Act (2021). The next COP (COP30) in November offers the perfect opportunity for the UK to make this commitment.

Making a showpiece of this may be one reason for the delay, another reason may be that the UK is eyeing-up alignment with EU legislation which may simplify trade, rather than have businesses needing to meet two sets of rules in neighbouring jurisdictions.

Minister Creagh alluded to interest in a broader scopethan the than the UK has previously committed to, which would be in line with elements of the EU’s legislation. The Government may also be waiting to see how far the EU’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) gets watered down in the spill-over from the ‘simplification agenda’ of the EU Omnibus Package (arguably more a bonfire of ambition). Alignment to remove trade barriers brings me on to…

Aligning with EU circular economy policy to aid economic growth

IEEP UK’s latest research shows that in some areas where the UK and its four nations are diverging from EU policy, selective re-alignment would provide a realistic and meaningful milestone for improving UK standards, from air quality to nature restoration.

With the Government’s desire for economic growth, alignment on many areas of policy would support this by removing trade barriers. In the last five years, the EU has developed a raft of new circular economy legislation including on eco-design, buildings, critical raw materials and batteries.

Our research at IEEP UK shows that UK businesses are calling for the UK to align with many of these to remove trade barriers. The Government’s forthcoming Circular Economy Strategy (likely in Spring 2026) is an opportunity to state an intention to raise levels of ambition to at least the level of the EU if not go beyond.

Put the Polluter Pays principle into forthcoming water legislation

Building on her recent background championing green finance and the Government’s priority to fix the water system, Reynolds could champion alignment with the EU’s Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, which put a duty on producers of medicinal and cosmetic products to pay for the damage caused to our watercourses and consider whether other sectors should be included.

Indeed this would build on a similar recommendation made in the Cunliffe review to which the Government has promised a consultation and white paper in response this Autumn.

This would go a long way to more fully implementing the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle, and would reaffirm the Government understands and respects the core environmental principles, which brings me on to…

Work with Steve Reed to amend the Planning Bill for Nature

The outgoing Secretary of State moves into an influential role in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government with the potential for a last-ditch influence on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and the forthcoming planning legislation which is trailed, to be even more radical.

Reed should understand the sizeable amount of evidence that nature underpins economic growth, and that it is reckless and misleading to pitch the two at odds with each other. Reynolds may also be concerned that, as it stands, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would constitute a regression on EU laws.

Not a good move if you are looking to play ball with the EU on other economic matters, and given the EU triggered the post-Brexit dispute mechanism on the recent sand eels dispute (not even due to regression, but UK ambition), it remains to be seen how they might react to the first obvious case of UK regression.

Get off on the right foot with farmers

One of the best examples where nature underpins a healthy economy is with farming.

With the recent reshuffle seeing a change in farming minister with Daniel Zeichner out and Angela Eagle in, there will be nervousness in the farming community. However many will also see this as an opportunity for the Government to reset its relations with the farming community.

Notwithstanding the inheritance tax, the new Secretary of State swiftly announcing the plans for the new Sustainable Farming Incentive will be welcome in giving some certainty, even if the detail is unlikely to please everyone.

Rapidly serving up the 25-year farming roadmap and the Land Use Framework, both of which have been baking for months now, will also help show farmers and the wider community of interest that this Government understands how important this sector is – whether for meeting nature and climate commitments, the economy, or more cynically securing some of the rural vote gained in the last election.

Show UK Leadership with a Food Systems Bill

Whilst it may not seem as much of a headline issue, the potential for impact and leadership on food policy should not be overlooked.

The Government has committed to an action plan to follow up its Food strategy released in July. The absence of a mooted Food Bill alongside this was noted by many commentators, and depending on where the blockers were for this, could be something that a change in Defra Ministers might decide to pick up as a way both to cement some of the ambitions around healthy and sustainable food systems that consecutive governments have promised and failed to maintain (using public procurement to support sustainable and British farming being a case in point).

If, as many have called for, this took a food systems approach it would also mark-out the UK for real European leadership in being the first to put something like this into law (although with the new French food legislation they may have something to say about that).

The IEEP UK is a sustainable think tank and not-for-profit charity with over 40 years of experience.

For more from IEEP UK, read their latest parliamentary briefing for the Autumn 2025 party conference season – Resetting our shared environment

The 157th annual TUC Congress in Brighton has passed a motion highlighting the importance of the UK’s relationship with the EU across the UK economy. 

Proposals in the motion call on the TUC General Council to lobby the UK Government to:

• Fully rejoin the Erasmus+ programme
• Remove barriers for UK musicians touring in the EU
• Evaluate proposals to change the Trade and Cooperation Agreement

European Movement UK has campaigned on the benefits of rejoining the Erasmus+ scheme since 2020, and on removing barriers for musicians since 2023 through our Face The Music campaign.

Alfred Quantrill, 20, is President of Young European Movement UK and said:

"Young Brits deserve the same chances enjoyed by most of their peers across the continent. The Government must commit to the Erasmus+ Scheme to reopen doors for British young people through education.

"That would also mean opening up broader access to apprenticeships, internships, and leisure. While our parents could freely work, study and travel across borders, my generation is trapped by lost opportunities, red tape and high costs. 

“Rejoining Erasmus+ is a chance for the Government to fix this failure."

The Law Society, Institute of Directors, ABTA, CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce have all expressed concern recently at the damage being done to young professionals by lack of access to the EU.

In an agreement signed yesterday between the UK and Spain, the Government has for the first time formally committed to negotiating a Youth Experience Scheme between the UK and the European Union.

The full government press release is here.

The agreement says:

'To foster new ties between our youth, we are committed to working towards a balanced youth experience scheme between the UK and the EU on terms to be mutually agreed.' 

European Movement UK welcomes yesterday's agreement with Spain, which confirms that the UK is now committed to seeking a youth experience scheme with the EU. It follows recent comments by Nick Thomas Symonds regarding a Youth Experience Scheme.

Alfred Quantrill, Young European Movement UK and Bristol University student, aged 20

"The Youth Experience Scheme promises to open up jobs to young Brits who, more than ever, lack opportunities within their own country. We urge the Government to make this happen as soon as possible.

"We deserve the same rights as other young people in Europe, and the Government has a chance to make real steps towards providing chances abroad for ambitious and hard working young people, who can bring their skills back home and boost our economy, as well as deepen links with our largest trading partner.

"European employers and educational institutions are far less likely to offer opportunities to young Brits if they are only able to stay for two years, or can only move within one EU member state. 

"The Government must push for three or four year stays within the EU to ensure the scheme succeeds, so that young Brits have time to engage in serious work and study to develop their skills. 

“Young European Movement would also call on the Government to ensure that any scheme negotiated with the EU allows for full movement within the EU or Schengen area, rather than limiting participating young people to a single EU country."

By Joe Meighan -

“And for his next trick…” 

After the disaster that was Brexit, Nigel Farage’s latest big idea is… to leave something else. This time, it’s the European Convention on Human Rights, supposedly to tackle immigration. Where have we heard this before? 

Read more

By Pierce Robinson -

Growing up in Enniskillen, a town scarred by the 1987 IRA bombing that killed 11 people, I was reminded daily of how fragile peace can be. After decades of violence, mistrust, and grief, it took years of negotiation - led by the British and Irish Governments with strong support from the USA and the EU - to end The Troubles.

But making peace on paper is one thing; making it work in daily life requires something deeper. That safeguard was the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Read more

With Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin preparing to meet in Alaska tomorrow, Europe faces a troubling scenario: the possibility that decisions about Ukraine are made without Ukraine.  

Any summit that excludes Kyiv, or treats its presence as symbolic, risks legitimising Russia’s war of aggression and undermining the security of the continent.

Even if we see a late invite for Zelensky to Alaska, being in the room is not the same as having a real voice in the outcome of the talks. A just and lasting peace must be shaped by the people and government of Ukraine. Treating the country as secondary, or as a chattel, sends a dangerous signal. It suggests that territorial conquests are there to be had and that they can be confirmed by sham negotiations, rather than resisted.

It is imperative that both the UK and EU move quickly to deliver on the ambitions of the recently agreed Security and Defence Partnership, building the capabilities needed to defend our values, protect our citizens and shape events in our neighbourhood rather than be shaped by them.

Former Minister for Armed Forces and CEO of European Movement UK, Sir Nick Harvey, said:

“No agreement made over Ukraine’s head, or without restoring its internationally recognised borders, can be called a just or lasting peace.  

“The future of Europe cannot be decided in rooms where Ukraine and the EU are absent, and where international law is treated as negotiable. We stand for a peace that is real, fair, and rooted in the principles that keep all Europeans safe.” 

Europe, the US and the world must be clear - peace is built on a foundation of Ukraine's making. The conditions for a sustainable peace must include justice for victims, protection for civilians, and the restoration of internationally recognised borders.

Anything less undermines the very fabric of European security and sets a dangerous precedent for the future. This is because the security of Kyiv is inseparable from the security of EU member states in the Baltic and by extension that of Warsaw, Berlin, Paris and London.

It is imperative that the peace and stability of Europe are not and never shall be in the gift of third parties.