All blogs

Reports suggest the UK government is tabling a new youth mobility deal to the EU ahead of the UK-EU summit on May 19.

Chair of European Movement, Mike Galsworthy, said this to The Independent:

“This is welcome news. We need to start pulling this country out of the no-growth quagmire of Brexit and start giving people hope for a better, brighter future.

“Liberating our youth and small businesses alike to engage is an important start. Hopefully the government will now see that being bold, hopeful and engaged with Europe brings a sigh of relief from the public and a happier outlook.”

Read the piece in full, here.

[Image: Shutterstock]

Sir Nick Harvey, former UK Armed Forces Minister and Chief Executive of European Movement UK, offers his view on the latest developments around the war in Ukraine.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer is right to propose sending British troops to join a peace-keeping force in Ukraine if and when any peace deal is concluded. Other European countries will surely follow suit.

But this will be challenging. We don’t have a large enough army to sustain both our current commitments to Estonia and NATO yet also take on significant extra duties. So we need to ramp up our defence fast – but nobody should imagine that our fighting capacity can surge at the flick of a switch. It takes time.

American reluctance to put its own boots on the ground in Ukraine is understandable and reasonable.  As a nation, they are exhausted with fighting other people’s wars. President Trump was elected on a promise to stop that. So European countries should indeed shoulder the operational burden.

But they can only do so safely and effectively with logistical support and defensive cover from NATO – and in practice that means America. Without their support in air cover, supply logistics, and intelligence, the mission would be doomed. It would be no deterrence to further Russian aggression.

Europe must just get over not being in today’s talks in Saudi Arabia. President Macron has done well to gather leaders fast to take a united position. But if Europe is to play the frontline role in sustaining whatever peace Trump and Putin cobble together, we must be included very soon.

President Trump seems to be preparing world opinion for a deal where Russia keeps the land it has illegally grabbed, dictates Ukraine’s future diplomatic status, is freed from economic sanctions and returns to the international community. This would reward their aggression with everything they want!

How could Ukraine, the Baltics, Moldova or any other frontline states possibly believe that Putin will stop there, and not just use a ceasefire to regroup and then come back for more?  Membership of both NATO and the EU are essential to Ukraine’s future. And if a peace-keeping force in Ukraine is only viable with NATO support, they would effectively be half in NATO anyway – so why not admit them?

To step up to its new challenge, Europe must develop more European-level defence budget, planning, policy-making, research, industrial procurement, and full spectrum military capability. This means more resilience, greater competitiveness and closer co-operation. In short, a European Defence Union.

This is not a European army, despite puerile efforts to depict it as such. It is a multi-national capability: NATO is precisely the proto-type. Nor is it an alternative to NATO – but rather, the development of a new strong European pillar within NATO, using NATO’s operational structures.

It must involve EU members and non-members alike – Britain, Türkiye and Norway are vital.  But there will be an EU role in it.

The vision which emerges is something which Trump’s right-wing allies in the UK and Europe traditionally hate and abhor. But they must wake up and smell the coffee! America can’t pull back on the one hand, yet object to Europe stepping up into the gap on the other.

A European Defence Union for all willing countries in Europe (some are neutral) needs to pull all this together. Collectively we must spend more, but strategically – to avoid duplication or gaps. Western Europe must support eastern neighbours to grow and develop industrial and operational capability. Britain wants to be closely involved, but the EU needs to open this up to non-members.

Time is of the essence. Trump has opened his dialogue with Putin. Nobody in Europe wants to alienate Washington or de-couple from it.  But if America wants Europe to stand on its own two feet – in Ukraine and generally – then it must let us do so, and welcome a European pillar in NATO.

The EU-UK Forum, organised by Paul Adamson and Encompass, brought together high-profile policymakers, business leaders, and analysts in a wide-ranging discussion on the evolving relationship between the UK and the European Union.

Against the backdrop of shifting geopolitical and economic challenges, the event underscored the complexities of post-Brexit cooperation and the opportunities for deeper engagement in critical areas such as trade, energy, and security. The full agenda can be found here. The EU-UK Forum was attended by Joe Meighan, our Public Affairs Manager, and Mark English, our Policy and Media Advisor (and main man) in Brussels.

The forum opened with a recorded keynote from Maroš Šefčovič, European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, who reiterated the EU’s commitment to strengthening ties with the UK, particularly through full implementation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).

Following this was in-person address from Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, UK Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, who emphasised a pragmatic approach to EU relations, highlighting security, economic growth, and regulatory cooperation as key priorities.

A major theme of the forum was the state of public sentiment on UK-EU relations. Exclusive polling across ten European countries, presented by Gideon Skinner of Ipsos UK and Ireland, revealed a prevailing lack of confidence on both sides in the prospect of improving ties. Suzanne Lynch, Chief Brussels Correspondent at Politico Europe, noted that while certain issues, such as freedom of movement, remained high priorities for EU citizens, they held much lower salience for the UK public.

Economic relations were also a major focus, with business leaders debating the challenges and opportunities presented by regulatory divergence and market access. Nick Collier of the City of London Corporation pointed out that services, which make up the bulk of the UK’s economy, remain underrepresented in the current trade framework. Derk Bleeker of Sage and Darren Ennis of Vodafone emphasised the importance of regulatory cooperation in technology and telecommunications, while financial commentator Simon Nixon explored broader competitiveness concerns.

Looking beyond economics, discussions then turned to political and security cooperation. Sandro Gozi MEP and Stella Creasy MP engaged in a forward-looking “fireside chat” on the potential for deepening engagement in areas like youth mobility and organised crime prevention. They emphasised the importance of approaching negotiations with an open and constructive mindset, focusing on finding practical solutions rather than revisiting entrenched positions or past disputes.

Meanwhile, Clara Semal of National Grid detailed quiet but significant progress on energy cooperation, particularly in linking emissions trading systems and maintaining alignment on climate goals.

Security and defence continued to feature prominently in the final discussions, with experts including Rosa Balfour of Carnegie Europe and Sir Julian King, former European Commissioner for the Security Union, stressing the need for pragmatic cooperation. They noted that successful defence partnerships could serve as a model for broader engagement. Alex Creswell OBE of Graphcore highlighted the critical role of innovation and investment in strengthening security ties, while Henry Foy of the Financial Times led a discussion on how shifting global dynamics, including a return of Donald Trump to the White House, might shape the UK’s and EU’s strategic priorities.

The event underscored both the ongoing challenges and the necessity for engagement between the UK and the EU. With the next UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly set for March, discussions on trade, security, and economic alignment will remain high on the agenda.

The European Movement continues to monitor these developments, advocating for cooperative solutions that serve both sides’ interests in an increasingly complex global landscape.

Sir Nick Harvey, formed Minister for Armed Forces (2010-2012), is CEO of European Movement UK.

The return of Donald Trump to the White House has been a wake-up call for European capitals. His ambivalence towards NATO, transactional alliances, and ‘America First’ agenda mean Europe—including the UK—can no longer rely on its transatlantic partner as it once did. For Britain, the question is simple: will we help shape Europe’s security, or watch from the sidelines? This will be key when Keir Starmer meets EU leaders in Brussels later today.

If we are serious about defending our interests and global influence, we must move quickly to strengthen our defence ties with the EU. Closer cooperation is not just in Britain’s interest—it is in Europe’s interest too. The EU gains as much from UK expertise, military capabilities, and intelligence-sharing as Britain does from being integrated into European security frameworks.

As a permanent UN Security Council member, a nuclear power, and a leading NATO force, Britain should be central to European defence. Yet, since leaving the EU, Britain has remained conspicuously absent from key European defence initiatives, even as security threats mount. This is a strategic mistake.

The geopolitical landscape has changed dramatically since the Trade and Cooperation Agreement was negotiated. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has fundamentally reshaped European security. We need to be responsive to these changes.

There is no contradiction between deepening European defence cooperation and maintaining NATO as the foundation of our security. A stronger European defence pillar strengthens NATO, particularly when a future US administration may be unwilling to come to Europe’s aid. Finland and Sweden’s NATO accession underscores the value of both partnerships.

Later today, leaders must discuss concrete steps to strengthen security cooperation. As part of these discussions, several key measures should be considered to strengthen UK-EU defence ties.

First, entering into a Framework Participation Agreement (FPA) with the European Union would enable the UK to participate in Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions on a case-by-case basis. The CSDP has become an increasingly important pillar of European defence, with missions designed to enhance Europe’s crisis management capabilities, improve regional security, and contribute to international peacekeeping efforts. Britain was once an active participant and led Operation Atalanta, which tackled piracy off Somalia’s coast and remains critical in safeguarding international shipping routes. Given the UK’s naval strength, re-engaging in would be a logical step. Also, reintegrating into Operation Althea, would help boost a crucial role in stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the wider Balkans.

Second, signing an Administrative Agreement with the European Defence Agency (EDA) would open up possibilities for the UK to join Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) projects. PESCO is an EU initiative designed to enhance defence collaboration between member states, focusing on critical areas such as military mobility, cyber defence, artificial intelligence for military applications, and cutting-edge surveillance technology. These projects promote joint capability development, ensuring European forces can operate more efficiently together.

Countries including the United States, Canada, and Norway already participate in select PESCO projects. Britain, with its advanced defence industry and military expertise, should seek entry into relevant projects. The EDA plays a crucial role in coordinating European defence cooperation, and excluding the UK from these initiatives weakens both British and European security.

Third, the UK has already demonstrated its willingness to work with European allies through the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), a UK-led rapid reaction force made up of Nordic and Baltic allies. Given Russia’s persistent threats to European stability, JEF should be expanded in both scope and operational readiness, incorporating additional countries—most notably Poland.

At the same time, the EU has actively encouraged greater collaboration between member states in defence research, development, and procurement. However, as a third country outside the single market, the UK is largely excluded from these schemes. This is a significant oversight. If the UK and EU are to strengthen their security cooperation, any new agreement must include provisions allowing Britain to take part in these vital defence initiatives. The EU has much to gain from UK expertise and capabilities, and this must be recognised in negotiations. Enhanced access to British-led research and industrial development would significantly boost Europe’s defence innovation and technological edge.

Failure to act now would be reckless. If Britain stands aside as Europe deepens its defence ties, we risk weakening our own security and marginalising ourselves in future strategic decisions.

In an uncertain world, our defence cooperation with the European Union should be as strong, if not stronger, than the partnerships our NATO allies—including the United States, Canada, and Turkey—already maintain with the EU. A security Agreement that formalises British participation in European defence initiatives is overdue.

This is not about choosing between the EU and NATO. It is about facing the reality of a shifting global order where Europe must take responsibility for its own defence. The UK must not only be part of this effort—it must help lead it.

Review by Mark English, Policy and Media Adviser to European Movement UK (personal views)

The Brexit Files, published this week, is UKICE’s epic research work marking the fifth anniversary of you-know-what. There are three parts and 40 short, fact-packed chapters. The tone is neutral and sober, as befits an academic work. But the conclusions that readers will draw are stark.

Read more

CEO, Sir Nick Harvey, outlines what the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean (PEM) Convention is and why the UK would benefit from joining.

At Davos, EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič suggested that Brussels is open to the UK joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean (PEM) Convention to strengthen trade relations.

However, the UK government remains hesitant. Both Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook and Minister for EU Relations Nick Thomas-Symonds indicated that there are no immediate plans to pursue membership. On the other hand, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds acknowledged the potential benefits and was quick to emphasise that PEM is not equivalent to a customs union—a red line for Labour—which leaves some room for cautious optimism.

The PEM Convention presents a practical opportunity for the UK to begin recalibrating its economic relationship with Europe in a way that benefits British businesses, strengthens supply chains, and enhances trade competitiveness. It will certainly not be a silver bullet to resolve all our current trade frictions, but joining PEM would be a pragmatic, tangible step forward—one that could deliver real value to industries deeply intertwined with European markets.

Although it is only a small step, it is an important one. Without laying the groundwork, any meaningful reset in relations with the EU will remain out of reach. It makes no sense to have ‘reset’ rhetoric on repeat while retreating from every opening for real change. Joining PEM would send a clear signal that the UK is serious about rebuilding trust and cooperation with Europe—without breaching the government’s self-imposed red lines, which, in my view, are unnecessary. Real progress requires a series of incremental measures before more ambitious goals can be pursued. That is why, as CEO of the European Movement UK, I am proud to lead a truly cross-party campaign advocating for a step-by-step approach to bring the UK and EU closer together—until Britain returns to the heart of Europe.

The PEM Convention, which includes the EU and 24 other countries—such as Norway, Algeria, and Ukraine—allows for diagonal cumulation of origin. In simple terms, this means that materials sourced from any PEM country can count as originating in the final product’s country of manufacture. For UK businesses, participation would mean they could use components from any PEM country and still qualify for tariff-free trade under preferential agreements. This would provide valuable support for industries such as automotive, chemicals, and food production, where complex, cross-border supply chains are the norm.

Since leaving the EU, UK businesses have faced new barriers, complex rules of origin, and rising costs. The impact has been felt across the manufacturing and export sectors, with supply chains being forced to move away from the UK. It is, therefore, difficult to understand the government’s reluctance to engage with practical solutions such as PEM.

Few businesses might lose by joining PEM—but far more would gain. Countries such as Switzerland and Morocco are eager for the UK to come on board, recognising the mutual benefits of reducing trade friction and enhancing regional integration.

PEM could provide significant value if it can operate alongside the rules of origin requirements set out in the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). This dual framework would allow UK and EU exporters to choose the most favourable conditions to qualify for tariff-free access. Although it may seem unconventional, such arrangements are often feature of trade agreements. For example, UK exporters to Australia have the option to follow either the UK-Australia free trade agreement or the regulations set by the CPTPP.

Business leaders are calling for clarity and certainty—two things PEM could provide. A growing number of industry groups, including the British Chambers of Commerce, have voiced their support, arguing that PEM membership could simplify supply chains, reduce bureaucracy, and enhance trade efficiency.

Joining PEM should be seen as part of a broader strategy to rebuild trust and cooperation with the EU. Alongside initiatives such as rejoining Erasmus+, securing a youth mobility agreement, establishing a new defence pact, and negotiating a better deal for the creative industries, PEM could serve as an important stepping stone toward a much closer UK-EU partnership.

This week, Rolling Stone magazine published an interview with Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy. 

“That change is going to come,” said Nandy. “We need to make it a more seamless process and more similar to how it was back in the day,”   

Voices from across the music sector, from musicians, performers and live music workers to instrument makers and teachers, have spoken out about the amount of post-Brexit challenges they are now facing. 

As Rolling Stone notes, the challenges include, “extensive networks of visas, work permits and carnets.” 

This intervention from Nandy comes after the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) responded to our Face The Music campaign in October last year. 

It also comes weeks after Sheffield Central MP Abtisam Mohamed spoke about our Face The Music campaign with Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism. 

"This is great to see from Lisa Nandy, but we cannot afford this to just be words,” said European Movement’s Campaign Manager, Richard Kilpatrick.  

“The sector needs to see real and tangible progress made on this as soon as possible." 

Our Face The Music campaign has long been calling for the UK government to find a solution to the issues facing musicians who want to tour Europe after Brexit. 

The campaign is calling for two concrete steps to improve the outlook for the UK’s live music sector: 

• Negotiated and reciprocal agreements to ease travel for UK musicians 

• A review of the restrictions on how many days artists and support workers can work in the EU within a 180-day period. 

For the sake of our world-leading live music sector, put pressure on the UK government to take action.