Joe Meighan

Public Affairs, European Movement UK

The Bayeux Tapestry’s late-summer visit to the UK reminds us that geography has always mattered. Keir Starmer oversaw a significant thaw in the UK’s relationship with Europe. Andy Burnham does not need to start again. The question is: how much deeper will he take it and could it lead to EU membership?
(Photo: Lauren Hurley/No 10 Downing Street)

Britain is rebuilding its European relationships. The question is where they lead.

Britain and France have spent the best part of a thousand years arguing, competing and cooperating with one another. Few countries know each other better, and few relationships matter more to Britain’s place in Europe.

The Bayeux Tapestry’s journey to Britain is therefore a fitting backdrop to Emmanuel Macron’s visit. It depicts perhaps the most famous chapter in our shared history, not exactly one of friendship, but the story since has been of two countries becoming increasingly bound together.

Today, we are neighbours, major economies and Europe’s two nuclear powers. Our security, energy, trade and politics are deeply connected. In a world becoming less predictable, the relationship matters more, not less.

So, the question for Andy Burnham and Emmanuel Macron is not simply how they maintain the renewed warmth of recent years. It is what Britain and France can now achieve with it, and where this renewed European diplomacy is ultimately meant to lead.

From rebuilding trust to using it

Keir Starmer deserves credit for helping to repair the relationship with France. His much-discussed “bromance” with Macron was sometimes treated as diplomatic theatre, but the trust they built had practical value.

Britain and France helped lead the Coalition of the Willing in support of Ukraine and worked increasingly closely on European defence and security. Macron’s decision to award Starmer the Légion d’honneur before he left office was a rather French flourish, but also a recognition of how far the relationship had come.

Burnham does not need to start again. He inherits a relationship stronger than it has been for years. Now he needs to use it.

There is plenty on the table. Britain and France can deepen cooperation on energy, defence and Ukraine. They need to work together on migration, an issue neither side of the Channel can solve alone. France can also be an important partner as Britain tries to turn the wider UK-EU reset into concrete agreements.

There is a bigger question sitting behind all of this. If Britain increasingly recognises that its security, prosperity and influence depend on deep cooperation with its European neighbours, how long can we continue pretending that a collection of bilateral deals is an adequate substitute for being fully involved in the structures where so many of those decisions are made?

Britain is rebuilding its European relationships

France is not the only example. Britain’s relationship with Germany has also deepened significantly. The Kensington Treaty has created a framework for closer cooperation across defence, security, economic growth, migration and people-to-people links.

It is another welcome sign that Britain is rebuilding relationships damaged during the Brexit years. The same pattern can be seen elsewhere across the continent.

We are rediscovering, country by country and agreement by agreement, something that should never really have been in doubt: Britain is a European country with European interests.

Strong bilateral relationships matter. They give Britain influence. They build trust. They allow practical cooperation on defence, energy, migration and trade.

Bilateralism, though, has limits. France cannot negotiate on behalf of the European Union. Germany cannot give Britain access to the Single Market. Twenty-seven separate friendships cannot reproduce the political and economic advantages of sitting at the table as a member.

That should force us to ask a more ambitious question.

Are we content to spend the coming years negotiating individual pieces of European cooperation from the outside, seeking access here, exemptions there and a sectoral agreement somewhere else? Or should Britain begin seriously considering whether the logical destination of all this relationship-building is full membership once again?

There is a danger that we become so focused on winning individual concessions that we settle for scraps from the table when Britain could once again have a seat at it.

The reset cannot be the destination

The UK-EU reset has been a measured success. Relations are better. Trust has been rebuilt. Britain is once again approaching its European partners as partners rather than political opponents.

That matters. However, there comes a point when better relations must produce agreements and tangible benefits, and another point beyond that when we must ask whether those agreements are enough.

Reducing barriers to food and agricultural trade would help British businesses and consumers. Linking emissions trading systems and improving electricity trading make sense when our energy infrastructure is already connected. A meaningful youth mobility agreement could restore opportunities that younger Britons have lost. Greater cooperation on defence procurement and industrial capacity is increasingly essential to Europe’s security.

We should, of course, pursue all of these things. We should, though, be clear about what they are: partial solutions to a much bigger problem.

For too long, the British debate has treated every small piece of closer European cooperation as an end in itself: an SPS agreement, an energy deal, a defence partnership or a mobility scheme. Each is valuable. Each is worth securing.

Taken together, they tell us something.

They tell us that Britain is steadily trying to rebuild many of the practical advantages of European membership without yet confronting the political question of membership itself. That cannot be avoided forever.

The relationship with France matters because France is one of our closest and most important partners. The relationship with Germany matters for the same reason. But these relationships should be bridges towards a deeper European strategy, not permanent alternatives to one.

The Bayeux Tapestry reminds us just how long the British and French stories have been intertwined. Almost a thousand years later, geography still matters. So do shared interests.

The reset was necessary because our relationship with Europe had become needlessly difficult. But Britain cannot remain permanently in a state of “resetting” its relationship with its own continent.

We have rebuilt much of the goodwill. We are rebuilding the friendships. We are negotiating our way back into cooperation, piece by piece.

The next question is the most important one.

At what point does Britain stop asking what scraps of European cooperation it can secure from the outside and start asking whether it should once again take its place as a full member?

After several high-profile figures in Labour have called on the likely Prime Minister to set out his foreign policy stance, Burnham makes clear that national security would be his first priority if he becomes prime minister. The world he describes is one of Russian aggression, conflict in the Middle East, climate and energy insecurity, cyberattacks, and rapid technological change. His central claim is that these pressures are no longer distant events. They are felt in household bills, hospital systems, energy prices, supply chains, and jobs.

This is where Burnham’s position begins to differ from a more traditional foreign policy statement. Rather than treating defence, economics, and social cohesion as separate policy areas, he presents them as part of the same national resilience agenda. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the war in Ukraine, attacks on NHS systems, and disruption at Jaguar Land Rover are used to show how international instability can quickly become a domestic crisis.

Hard power, but with a domestic dividend

Burnham’s clearest commitment is to rebuilding Britain’s “hard power”. He backs the UK’s pledge to increase defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035, while arguing that the public must be levelled with about what this will cost and why it matters.

However, the political significance lies in where he wants that money to go. Burnham argues that increased defence investment should not simply purchase equipment from overseas suppliers. Instead, it should regenerate British industry, support apprenticeships, and create jobs in communities that have seen economic opportunity decline.

This is a foreign policy with an industrial strategy at its centre. Burnham wants Britain to strengthen sovereign capability in areas such as shipbuilding, energetics, AI and quantum technologies. The argument is that defence investment should improve military readiness while also rebuilding domestic productive capacity.

That approach is likely to appeal to parts of the country where traditional industry has declined and where globalisation has often been experienced as insecurity rather than opportunity. Burnham is presenting defence not just as a national obligation, but as a route to reindustrialisation.

Continuity on NATO, Ukraine and the US

Despite the domestic emphasis, Burnham is careful to reassure allies that his approach would not weaken Britain’s existing commitments. He describes the UK’s commitment to NATO and the nuclear deterrent as absolute and says the United States would remain Britain’s most important defence and security ally.

His support for Ukraine is also firm. Burnham argues that British security and Euro-Atlantic security are inseparable from Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression. By referencing his engagement with Ukrainian mayors, including Andriy Sadovyi and Vitali Klitschko, he places his support for Ukraine in both strategic and civic terms.

This matters because Burnham is not attempting to sound isolationist. His emphasis on British workers and domestic resilience could easily be read as a turn inward, but his argument is more nuanced. He is saying that Britain can only be credible abroad if it is stronger at home.

A stronger European pillar

Burnham also signals a desire for closer European co-operation, particularly through the E3 grouping of the UK, France, and Germany. He wants to strengthen the European pillar within NATO and remove barriers to defence industrial co-operation.

This is one of the most important elements of his foreign policy positioning. It suggests a pragmatic post-Brexit approach that avoids reopening old arguments while seeking closer co-operation where British interests are clearly aligned with European partners.

He also links this to wider UK-EU negotiations, including illegal migration, economic security and resilience against terrorism and AI-driven disinformation. The message is that Europe is not simply a trading relationship or a diplomatic forum. It is a shared security space.

Defence, technology, migration, cyber resilience, and economic security are increasingly interconnected. Burnham appears to be arguing that Britain needs a more joined-up state to respond.

Values, institutions and international law

Burnham’s intervention also contains a values-based argument. He says Britain’s alliances must be built on interests and values, and that support for international law and institutions such as the UN extends UK influence.

This is a deliberate contrast with a world in which major powers are increasingly willing to ignore international norms. Burnham is positioning Britain as a country that should remain principled while also becoming more capable and resilient.

His argument is that values alone are not enough, and that military power alone will not secure Britain’s interests. In continuity with his predecessor, he is attempting to combine deterrence, industrial strength, alliance-building, and international legitimacy.

Transparency and public consent

Burnham also calls for greater public scrutiny of defence spending. He wants more detailed progress updates on major defence and infrastructure projects, with stronger accountability to prevent delays and cost overruns.

This reflects a wider theme in his political brand: the idea that government should be more open, more place-based and more accountable. Defence spending is often treated as distant from everyday politics, but Burnham argues that it must deliver social value as well as security.

That may become a major test of his position. Asking the public to support higher defence spending at a time of pressure on public services will require a clear explanation of trade-offs. Burnham’s answer is that defence investment can also support jobs, skills and economic renewal.

Foreign policy through No 10 North

Perhaps the most distinctive part of Burnham’s argument is his insistence that Britain’s strength at home and abroad are indivisible. Through No 10 North and further devolution, he says Britain should regenerate and reindustrialise all parts of the country as part of a broader security strategy.

This is foreign policy seen through the lens of place. Burnham is arguing that national resilience starts locally: in industrial towns, energy systems, hospitals, ports, supply chains, digital infrastructure and skilled workforces.

The result is a foreign policy doctrine that blends Labour’s traditional concern for workers and communities with a more hard-headed view of global threats. It accepts that Britain faces a more dangerous world but insists that the response cannot be left to defence policy alone.

Burnham’s message is therefore both international and domestic. Britain must remain committed to NATO, Ukraine, the US alliance, European co-operation, international law and the UN. But it must also use the demands of this new security era to rebuild its own industrial base and restore confidence in the state’s ability to protect people.

Whether that can be delivered is another question. Defence procurement is complex, industrial renewal takes time, and closer European co-operation will require careful diplomacy. But as a statement of direction, Burnham’s foreign policy pitch is clear: Britain should face a darker world by becoming more resilient, more productive, more allied and more rooted in the strength of its own communities.

You can still get a copy of our new edition of ChamberUK. Our parliamentary journal.

You can buy your copy here.

Photo: House of Commons

Ben Howlett

Chamber UK CEO

What The King’s historic address signals for transatlantic ties

King Charles III’s address to the US Congress on Tuesday was historic, warmly received and subtle on policy. Only the second British monarch ever to speak before lawmakers on Capitol Hill, The King used the occasion not merely to celebrate shared history, but to send carefully calibrated signals about the future direction of the UK-US relationship at a moment of global uncertainty.

For British businesses and policymakers alike, the speech should be carefully analysed. Beneath the traditional ceremonial language and humour lay a clear message from the UK Head of State and leader of the Commonwealth – the “special relationship” remains strong, but it cannot be taken for granted.

Continuity, not rupture, at the heart of the alliance

At its core, The King’s speech sought to reassure those concerned of a widening split in UK-US relations. By describing the historic partnership as “more important today than it has ever been,” The King reinforced the idea that the relationship transcends any single government, leader or policy disagreement. A statement only The King could make. This matters at a time when political volatility on both sides of the Atlantic has prompted questions about the durability of long‑standing alliances.

For British firms operating in, trading with, or investing in the United States, the signal was clearly delivered; the institutional foundations of the relationship remain solid. Defence, intelligence sharing, financial cooperation and regulatory coordination continue to rest on decades of embedded trust. With domestic political challenges for both the UK Prime Minister and US President – The King’s address was designed to reassure that even with political challenges at home – the relationship remains strong.

The emphasis on history was not nostalgic window‑dressing. By framing four centuries of shared experience as the backdrop for future cooperation, The King underscored that the partnership is not simply transactional that endures a single political cycle, but more foundational to how each state defines itself and the relationship with their key ally.

Whilst this was King Charles’ first State Visit to the US, he has met the US President a number of times, including during Trump’s visit to the United Kingdom in 2019, when he was Prince of Wales.

A diplomatic nudge toward sustained US leadership

While deliberate and crafted , the speech also contained unmistakable encouragement for the United States to maintain its global leadership role. The King warned against the temptation for nations to become “ever more inward‑looking”, a phrase widely read as a gentle appeal to Washington at a time of international strain following disagreements over Ukraine, Greenland, Iran – and more problematic, NATO itself.

Importantly, this appeal was made to Congress, not solely to the White House. By addressing legislators directly, King Charles highlighted the central role Congress plays in trade, defence funding, alliance commitments and long‑term policy direction.

For the UK, this reflects a strategic priority for His Majesty’s Government: ensuring that American engagement with allies remains anchored not just in executive action, but in bipartisan institutional support. Stability matters for markets, supply chains and investment decisions – and the UK is positioning itself as a voice for continuity rather than disruption.

Security cooperation as the non‑negotiable core

If any area of the relationship was presented as beyond doubt, it was security. The King’s firm support and advocacy for NATO, explicit backing for Ukraine, and praise for initiatives such as AUKUS reinforce that defence cooperation remains the bedrock of the transatlantic partnership.

For business leaders, this has indirect but significant implications. Security alignment underpins everything from energy infrastructure protection to technology collaboration, and shipping routes. The affirmation that these ties are long‑term and insulated from day‑to‑day political tension should be reassuring for sectors exposed to geopolitical risk.

The King conceded disagreements may arise, but he was clear that the architecture of shared defence is not up for renegotiation.

Democratic values as commercial foundations

One of the most discussed aspects of the speech was The King’s repeated references to constitutional principles, checks and balances, and the rule of law. While framed historically – through references to Magna Carta and Abraham Lincoln – the implication was unmistakably relevant for today.

For investors and businesses, democratic reliability is not a political concept relegated to the A-level textbook. Legal predictability, independent institutions, and stable regulatory environments are central to commercial confidence. By placing these values at the heart of the bilateral relationship, The King reaffirmed what many in the business community already know to be a reality – trust between nations is inseparable from trust in their systems.

With democracy under threat around the world (some would argue rightly in the HJ and US too), the UK sees shared democratic norms not as optional, but as foundational to long‑term partnership.

Moral awareness without political overreach

The King’s brief reference to supporting victims of abuse, widely interpreted as an acknowledgment of sensitive debates, illustrated another recurring theme of the address: empathy and restraint.

Rather than engaging in political controversy, the speech demonstrated how the Uk intends to navigate difficult terrain with their closest ally – acknowledging concerns, expressing shared values, but avoiding actions that could undermine legal processes or diplomatic stability.

What this means for UK economic interests

Taken together, the speech sends a signal to companies operating across the Atlantic. The US-UK relationship is not in crisis, but it is evolving amid global shifts. The UK is positioning itself as a steady, reliable partner – one that values open markets, shared security, and institutional continuity.

For British business, the implication should be cautiously positive. Although a difficult pill to swallow for the politically interested – the US and the UK are stuck with the same leader (notwithstanding their impotence from forthcoming local elections and midterms) for the foreseeable. One thing that Trump and Starmer have in common is the inability of their enemies to join opposition blocks together and they are therefore likely to limp on.

Against this background, therefore, expect continued cooperation, deep ties in defence and technology, and a shared interest in predictable, rules‑based systems. At the same time, The King’s message is that engagement matters – alliances, like markets, require active stewardship.

The King’s speech was a reminder that the strength of the UK-US relationship lies both in history and deliberate choices about the future.

Delivering the Attlee Foundation Lecture at King’s College London, former Conservative Prime Minister, Sir John Major offered a grave but carefully argued reflection on the condition of British democracy, the health of the international order, and the risks of political complacency at a moment of deep public disenchantment.

He began by addressing the apparent incongruity of a former Conservative Prime Minister delivering a lecture in honour of Clement Attlee. In truth, he suggested, there was nothing strange about it at all. Attlee, Major said, deserved admiration not only for the scale of his achievement, but for his courage, public spirit, and willingness to put country before party. The NHS, his wider commitment to public service, and his example of serious political leadership all still matter today.

That opening was about more than historical courtesy. It set up one of the defining themes of the lecture – that democratic politics works best when opponents treat one another as opponents, not enemies. Major drew a sharp distinction between mainstream political rivalry, and the politics of grievance and division. The true enemies of democratic parties, he argued, are “populist insurgents” who seek to inflame resentment, exaggerate real social problems, and then blame minorities for them. That, he said plainly, is ugly politics and should have no place in Britain.

Mainstream politics must not lose its nerve

A central argument of the speech was that Britain’s mainstream parties have more in common than they often admit. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats may differ on philosophy, priority, and policy, but they all broadly want stronger public services, economic wellbeing, secure defence, good housing, flourishing education and decent employment. In a liberal democracy, those are not radical aspirations but basic expectations.

The problem, Major suggested, is that too often those expectations are not being met. That failure is feeding disenchantment, and disenchantment creates danger. When the main democratic parties collectively struggle to command even half of public support in the polls, that is not merely a momentary party-political setback. It is a warning sign.

Major’s message was not that democracy has already failed, but that it cannot be assumed safe simply because it is long established. Around the world, he noted, democracy has been retreating for years, with autocrats steadily weakening democratic protections to entrench their own power. Britain is not immune. If mainstream politics is cast aside too casually, he warned, the space created may not be filled by other democrats.

That was one of the most striking passages in the lecture. Any voter tempted to rejoice at the collapse of Labour, the Conservatives, or the Liberal Democrats, he implied, should think carefully about what might come next. If the old democratic structures fall away, the replacement may be harsher, less accountable, and far less tolerant.

Reform must mean more than rhetoric

Major also turned his attention to the growing overuse of the language of reform.

Politicians often invoke reform to signal seriousness and renewal, but the word itself can conceal as much as it reveals. Reform means change, he said. Change means upheaval. Upheaval provokes opposition.

His instinct was not anti-reform, but sceptical of empty reformism. Before tearing up longstanding systems, politics should first show that it can make progress on the everyday questions that shape people’s lives. He listed a series of practical issues that remain unresolved: whether tax levels deter savings and investment, whether planning rules are blocking housing, whether the benefits system discourages work, whether the triple lock should be better targeted, whether Parliament should take stronger action against the misuse of social media, and how Britain can pay for the armed forces it needs.

“Populists trade on grievance…and then blame those ills on minority groups of a different race or religion. It is ugly politics and it should have no place in our country.”

In other words, there is no shortage of substantive policy work to be done. Yet Major also argued that the political system itself needs attention. Politics, he said, has a “grubby underbelly” and is long overdue for a spring clean.

He questioned whether political funding is being corrupted when large donors, with no obvious qualification beyond wealth, receive honours or privileged access to ministers. Donations, he said, should be capped to guard against undue influence. He rejected the idea of an elected House of Lords, warning that it would challenge the primacy of the Commons and create constitutional confusion rather than improve scrutiny. But he did open the door to a serious debate about the voting system, arguing that first-past-the-post is producing increasingly distorted outcomes as voting patterns fragment.

He also made the case that MPs who defect to another party should be required to face their constituents again. Constitutionally, MPs are elected as individuals. Politically, Major argued, voters choose them as party representatives. On that basis, logic and decency suggest they should seek a renewed mandate if they cross the floor.

A blunt verdict on Brexit

Perhaps the most politically sensitive intervention of the evening came when Major addressed Brexit. To applause from the audience, he said openly that Brexit had failed to deliver on its promises, and that the economic consequences had been serious. The loss of trade and tax revenue, he argued, has done real harm to public finances, public services and living standards.

Unlike the recent intervention by the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, [BH1] he stopped short of advocating a return to the European Union in the near future, acknowledging the political and practical barriers. But he was unequivocal that Britain should rebuild its relationship with its European neighbours as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.

This sat within a broader argument about Britain’s strategic position in the world. Leaving the EU, he said, weakened the UK’s ability to operate between the great European and American power centres at precisely the moment when the United States was becoming more distant and more unpredictable.

The international order is fraying

Much of the lecture focused on foreign affairs, and here Major’s tone became darker still. He lamented the erosion of the post-war rules-based system – built in the aftermath of the Second World War through institutions, alliances and habits of co-operation that helped make the world safer, freer and more stable.

The US, in his account, once stood at the heart of that benign order. He spoke warmly of the tradition that ran from Truman and the Marshall Plan through to the close trust he experienced personally with President George H. W. Bush during the first Gulf War. But he argued that this inheritance is now under severe strain.

President Trump’s approach, Major said, has introduced a harsher and more transactional American posture, one driven by slogans of self-interest and marked by tariff increases, hostility towards allies and a more dismissive attitude to Europe. Vice President Vance’s claim that Europe poses a greater threat to freedom than Russia was, Major said, both offensive and absurd.

“If diplomacy, consultation and co-operation break down, we will be moving towards the law of the jungle – and in such a world, no country is safe.”

He was especially critical of the treatment of President Zelensky in Washington, describing the Ukrainian leader as having been ambushed rather than supported. More broadly, Major warned that if diplomacy, consultation and co-operation continue to break down, the world risks moving towards the law of the jungle – a world in which might is right and weaker nations are left exposed to the will of the powerful.

He also used the lecture to question how secure NATO’s guarantees would remain if the United States became less willing to shoulder its traditional responsibilities. Europe, he argued, must become more self-reliant in defence while remaining firmly within NATO. That means higher defence spending, tougher choices, and far closer co-ordination on procurement and military readiness.

Britain must speak honestly to allies

For all his criticism, Major was careful not to suggest that Britain should distance itself from America. The transatlantic alliance, he said, remains essential to British security and intelligence interests. But partnership should not mean deference.

He criticised the growing tendency to tiptoe around President Trump for fear of causing offence. Sovereign nations that behave in that way, he warned, will eventually be treated “not as allies but as subordinates”. Britain should speak truth to the United States when it disagrees – privately, respectfully, but firmly.

That belief in moral seriousness and statecraft was refreshingly articulated throughout the lecture. Britain, he argued, must continue to stand up for what is right, not simply what is expedient.

A guarded optimism for Sir John Major

For all its warnings, the speech did not end in despair. Asked in the Q&A where optimism could still be found, Major pointed to “the young”. They have, he said, been badly treated in many ways – burdened by debt, priced out of housing, and deprived of the stability earlier generations took for granted. Yet they are also more open, less prejudiced, more internationally minded, and more willing to embrace shared action on common problems.

That, for Major, is where hope lies.

His lecture cannot be seen a simple lament for a lost political culture or a fading international order. It was a inspirational call for democratic seriousness – for mainstream politics to recover its sense of service, for Britain to repair trust at home, and for liberal democracies to recover the confidence to defend their values abroad.

Prosperity and democratic stability do not survive on sentiment alone. They require work, honesty, co-operation and courage. If the UK and its allies fail to provide those things, others with darker intentions will be only too ready to fill the void.

This annual Attlee Lecture was organised by The Strand Group and the Attlee Foundation.

There has quite clearly been a shift in the Government’s stance on the ‘B-word’. At last month’s Labour Party Conference, and in recent public statements, ministers have begun explicitly acknowledging the economic damage inflicted by leaving the EU. Until now, the word was used rarely, if ever – a taboo term across Westminster. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and virtually the entire political class have long known the damage leaving the European Union has done, but they were hesitant to articulate it for fear of the political fallout.

Brexit: a 4 per cent drop in the UK economy

The Office for Budget Responsibility has been consistent: leaving the EU will reduce the size of the UK economy by around 4 per cent and cut trade intensity by roughly 15 per cent in the long run. These are not abstract academic projections – they mean lost opportunities, higher costs, and real impacts on people’s lives. This is the reality we are living with, and only now is the Government beginning to face up to what the public has known for some time.

This change must be welcomed – but with caution. One reason is obvious: a second ‘B-word’ is looming. The Budget. Rachel Reeves is already laying the groundwork for the tough and unpopular choices she will inevitably announce – and she wants Brexit to take some of the blame.

And rightly so. If you are going to speak of the damage, you must be honest about where the responsibility lies. But it is not acceptable to acknowledge the harm without offering solutions to undo as much of it as we can.

Progress being made with a Brexit “reset”

The Government’s ‘reset’ with the EU is undoubtedly a step forward. The UK–EU Summit last May showed a willingness to move forward together. And for many sectors, progress is being made – albeit too slowly.

An eventual veterinary agreement would remove much of the paperwork and cost associated with trading agri-food with the EU – one of the industry’s greatest demands. Returning to the EU’s internal electricity market would replace the inefficient trading systems we currently have, which are costing hundreds of millions of pounds a year – costs ultimately passed on to consumers. Linking our carbon trading system back to the EU’s – which the UK helped to design – would remove the need for the punishing carbon border taxes on goods traded between the UK and EU, which are due to come in next year.

All of this is welcome. But – and it is a big but – these steps alone will not reverse the long-term damage. They are fine-tuning mechanisms, not economic transformation.

So, what must come next?

First, we need a clear, staged strategy to return the UK to the heart of Europe. At the European Movement, we have long advocated a step-by-step approach – ambitious, deliberate, and honest with the public. We know UK–EU summits will become annual events. They should not be photo opportunities but milestones. Each should deliver specific progress: on market access, smoother trade in goods and services, and sector-by-sector reintegration. We should be thinking not just about the next summit, but the one after that, and the one after that – each taking us closer to where we need to be.

Second, the British public must be able to see and feel the benefits. It is no longer enough to simply promise improved trade. People need to see jobs created, exports growing, household energy bills falling, festivals and sport enriched by easier travel, and professional careers no longer held back by red tape. Unless the gains are visible and tangible, any policy will lack legitimacy.

Third – and most importantly – we must recognise that the most powerful changes lie deeper than incremental fixes. For real, transformational benefit, we must rebuild access to the single market – not just for goods, but for services and people: professionals, artists, musicians, touring performers, universities, and researchers. These human and economic links matter as much as the numbers. And we must work towards a UK–EU customs territory. That does not mean automatically re-joining the Customs Union, but it does mean developing a customs-union-style arrangement.

Final thought: Brexit and the Budget

In short, yes, I welcome the Government’s new honesty about the economic damage of leaving the EU. It is overdue. But if Ministers are serious about that damage, then words are not enough. The Government must be bolder. It needs to go further and faster and not be paralysed by fear of Reform or by those still fighting the battles of 2016. The public are ahead of the politicians on this – they can see the costs in their jobs, their shops, their bills, and their children’s opportunities. So let us tell the truth about where the blame lies – and then have the courage to fix it.

“Can We Be Great Again?”

Opening with humorous anecdotes, Hunt recalled his time as Foreign Secretary, describing the grandeur of the Foreign Office and the question every new occupant asks: “Is this just an imperial delusion, or are we actually this amazing, strong, powerful, great country?”

His new book, he explained, was written to answer that question. It examines seven major global challenges – from democracy and climate change to migration and artificial intelligence – and assesses Britain’s influence in addressing them.

“In every single case, out of 193 countries in the United Nations, we were always in the top ten most influential nations – often in the top five.”

Sir Jeremy Hunt

That, Hunt suggested, is a truth the British often forget. Despite national pessimism, he said, the country still has profound global clout and strong fundamentals. The challenge is to turn that potential into renewed confidence.

Economic Strength and Political Power

Hunt linked global influence directly to economic performance. Drawing on forecasts from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, he noted that the UK is projected to remain the world’s sixth-largest economy in 2039 – behind only the United States, China, India, Japan and Germany.

“Even with all the doom and gloom, we’ll still be number six. We have the third-largest technology sector in the world. We should be a little more optimistic than the general mood suggests.”

Yet, he warned, economic strength and political clout are inseparable. Citing China’s rise as an economic superpower achieved “without firing a shot”, Hunt argued that Britain’s global influence depends on rebuilding fiscal discipline at home. He lamented the absence of a clear plan to reduce national debt which now costs every household nearly £4,000 a year in interest payments, compared to 800 euros for every German household.

His prescription was straightforward: never allow public spending to grow faster than the economy. “That’s how debt spirals,” he said. “We’ve been increasing welfare spending faster than national growth – and that is simply unsustainable.”

Confidence, Not Isolation

Hunt urged Conservatives and the wider country to resist self-doubt and insularity. Britain, he said, remains admired abroad for its integrity and global outlook, even as it indulges in national self-criticism at home.

“We are the global leader in washing our dirty linen in public,” he joked. “But we forget that other countries have challenges too.”

The book, he stressed, was not jingoistic. “This isn’t about claiming we’re better than anyone else,” he said. “It’s about recognising that the world is dangerous, and underestimating ourselves is the worst possible response.”

Hunt called for renewed co-operation with allies who share Britain’s democratic values: “The important thing is not to pull up the drawbridge but to roll up our sleeves and work with those who share our worldview.”

Rebuilding Relations with Europe

In discussion with Forum members, Hunt praised the Labour Government’s pragmatic diplomacy in improving relations with the European Union. This was a point that received wide appreciation from the audience. “Foreign policy may be where Keir Starmer’s greatest success lies,” he observed. “He’s managed to make friends with both Donald Trump and the EU – no small feat.”

Hunt argued that, after the “messy divorce” of Brexit, the war in Ukraine had helped both sides mature. The UK’s leadership in European security, he said, had “shown that we are good Europeans”. Though frustrated by new EU barriers to British participation in defence projects, he judged that relations were “broadly moving in the right direction”.

The US and Britain’s Global Standing

On the “special relationship”, Hunt adopted a pragmatic view. “Diplomacy is a cold-hearted, transactional business,” he said. The US values the UK because it can rely on us as a military partner prepared to project force overseas.

He cited former President Trump’s remark that “Britain would come to America’s aid if it were attacked” as an important compliment.

Around the world, Hunt added, Britain continues to command respect for its role in creating the post-war international order. “People look to us, even more so when America appears unpredictable,” he said.

Restoring the Centre Ground

Asked whether the Conservative Party could return to the centre, Hunt gave a candid assessment. Moderate parties globally, he observed, have been losing elections. “We need to look in the mirror,” he said. “People must see that elected politicians can actually solve problems faster and better than we did in office.”

While upholding moderate values – strong public services, climate responsibility and international development – Hunt said the party must also show toughness and radicalism in tackling challenges like illegal migration. “We must be both compassionate and effective,” he said.

Migration, Openness and Britain’s Future

Hunt described illegal migration as the issue most undermining Britain’s traditional openness. “For centuries, this country has thrived by welcoming the brightest and best,” he said. “A third of our Nobel Prize winners were born abroad.”

But he warned that public trust in that openness is “fraying”, and mainstream parties must restore confidence by proving they can control borders. Only then could Britain remain open to talent, students and investment.

“If we want to protect the virtue that made us great, we must also show that we can control who comes here.”

Sir Jeremy Hunt

He called for reform of the European Convention on Human Rights if necessary and urged co-operation with France and the EU on practical solutions, similar to the EU–Turkey agreement that curbed crossings in 2016.

China, Democracy and Dialogue

Hunt reflected on his personal connection to China and the global contest between democracy and autocracy. “Xi Jinping would say autocracies are better because they make long-term decisions,” he said. “That’s the argument we must defeat.”

He advocated a twin-track approach: “We need both strength and dialogue.” Britain, he argued, must engage China to prevent conflict and address shared challenges like climate change and bioethics. “There’s no solution to global warming without China,” he noted. “And we must work with them to set limits on technologies such as gene editing.”

Europe’s Security and Economic Challenge

On European defence, Hunt said leaders had so far acted wisely – increasing military spending and avoiding trade wars with the US. However, he warned that Europe’s dependency on America stems from economic stagnation.

“If we want to defend ourselves without cutting public services, we must understand why Asia and North America grow faster than we do – and act on it.”

He urged both Britain and the EU to revive long-stalled reforms in planning, welfare and productivity.

On the Next Budget

Asked what he would do as Chancellor today, Hunt sympathised with Rachel Reeves but warned against further tax rises. “Higher taxes will simply reduce economic growth,” he said. Instead, he called for major welfare reform, a productivity overhaul in the NHS, and a renewed focus on technical education for non-graduates.

He concluded with characteristic clarity, “We know what to do – it’s about having the courage to do it.”

“A Dangerous World Needs Britain”

Closing the evening, CEF chair, Stephen Hammond praised Hunt for reaffirming core Conservative values – fiscal responsibility, fairness, compassion and international co-operation.

Hunt’s central message resonated with the audience; Britain remains capable of greatness if it combines economic discipline with moral confidence and works alongside allies who share its democratic ideals.

“This is not the moment to retreat,” Hunt said. “It’s the moment to remember who we are – and what we can do when we act with our friends to make the world safer and freer.”

To find out more about Sir Jeremy Hunt’s book, visit Swift Press.

The war began in April 2023 when the RSF and regular Sudanese army, previously uneasy partners, clashed over plans for military integration. The initial power struggle has since devolved into a devastating civil war, killing tens of thousands and causing a massive humanitarian crisis across the country. 

The RSF’s Key Milestone: The Fall of El Fasher

The RSF’s agreement to the truce proposal comes on the heels of a significant military victory: the capture of the key city of El Fasher.

El Fasher had served as the Sudanese army’s last major stronghold in the Darfur region. Its fall marked a critical milestone in the war, giving the RSF de facto control over more than a quarter of Sudan’s territory. 

The city’s capture was followed by troubling reports from witnesses of mass killings and civilian abductions by RSF fighters. This included the alleged murder of 460 people in a maternity hospital in the region. While the RSF has publicly called for the protection of civilians and promised to prosecute any violations, the reports underscore the urgency of a true cessation of hostilities.

Image: View of a new settlement in Zam Zam camp for Internally Displaced People (IDP), North Darfur – Albert Gonzalez Farran, UNAMID

Sudan’s paramilitary Rapid Support Forces claimed that they had arrested several of their fighters after outrage over the killings. However, human rights campaigners and Sudanese people believe this was an attempt to suppress the criticism.

The conflict has led to millions of people displaced and sparked widespread hunger, particularly in the Western regions of the country, prompting the UN to call it one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises and the declaration of famine.

The Proposal and The Global Response 

The current ceasefire proposal, brokered by the US and supported by regional powers including Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt, aims for a three-month humanitarian truce to be followed by negotiations for a permanent ceasefire.

The White House quickly affirmed its commitment to a resolution. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt states that the US is “actively engaged in efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution to the terrible conflict in Sudan”.

In a public statement, the RSF expressed a desire to move quickly, stating they “look forward to implementing the agreement and immediately commencing discussions on arrangements for a cessation of hostilities and the fundamental principles guiding the political process in Sudan”.

The RSF’s History of Failure and Army Hesitation 

Despite the RSF’s willingness, a definitive resolution remains uncertain. The two warring factions have previously agreed on multiple ceasefire proposals since 2023, none of which have succeeded.

Image: Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) at Zam Zam camp outside El Fasher, Sudan

Crucially, the Sudanese army has yet to formally respond to the ceasefire announcement. Army leaders and allies within the Security and Defence Council met earlier this week but reportedly expressed disapproval, failing to give a definitive answer to the US proposal.

With the Sudanese government warning that genocide is unfolding in Darfur, and the Foreign Secretary calling for an immediate halt to fighting, all eyes will be on the diplomatic effort and whether it can finally end the systematic violence and prevent a complete state collapse.

The Trajectory of the RSF

The RSF’s seizure of El Fasher represents a major strategic shift, consolidating their control over Darfur and effectively pushing Sudan toward a de facto partition along East-West lines. However, this military victory is overshadowed by a humanitarian crisis of historic proportions, with widespread famine and mass displacement driving the urgency for the US-led truce.

For the RSF to succeed long-term, their strategy relies on two key factors: sustained external backing and gaining political legitimacy. The military advantage they have gained, despite the catastrophic cost of reported atrocities, provides significant leverage at the negotiating table. Should the current ceasefire fail, the RSF is set to solidify its control over western Sudan, maintain its powerful position through gold-smuggling revenues, and continue to challenge the Sudanese army’s claim to be the sole representative of the state. The critical unknown remains the Sudanese army’s ultimate response to the truce proposal.

Featured Image via Albert Gonzalez Farran, UNAMID

Short-term relief on rare earths

In arguably the most significant announcement following the meeting, Trump stated that “all of the rare earths have been settled” and that China had agreed to a one-year free-flow agreement for the essential resource.

China has a near-monopoly on these minerals, which are essential for a variety of products, including semiconductors. It has increasingly leveraged this monopoly as the trade war waged on, choking out manufacturers worldwide as it gradually stepped up export controls throughout the year. Just last week, China announced even stricter new control measures on specific rare earths used for semiconductors and military technology, citing national security concerns.

The Chinese government has now committed to repealing that recent measure, and it has promised not to implement any new measures for a year. However, it appears China is allowed to leave previous export controls enacted before October, which have led to global shortages.

“This is a moment of relief, not a solution,” writes Reed Blakemore, director with the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center. “We can expect China to use these export controls to its advantage again anytime the trade tensions resurface.” Blakemore argues that much of the uncertainty around rare earths remains.

 Trump slightly reduces tariffs

Speaking on Air Force One after the meeting, Trump said he would lower the tariffs on Chinese goods from 57% to 47%. This is a small relief, but the tariffs on Chinese goods remain extremely high. For instance, Trump has only enacted 15% tariffs on most EU exports.

Trump says these tariff reductions were mainly a result of China’s commitment to combat the spread of fentanyl, as the President has accused the Chinese of facilitating the global trade of the drug. After the meeting, Trump said Xi had agreed to work “very hard to stop the flow of fentanyl”.

“The tariff reduction itself does not make much of a difference,” Julian Evans-Pritchard of economics research firm Capital Economics writes. He believes most Chinese exporters shrugged them off anyway, and Trump could increase tariffs again anytime. “But the general de-escalation does help, as it decreases the risk for sudden tariff hikes in the future.”

Image: F. D. Richards/ Flickr

Beijing promises to buy US farm produce

When it comes to agriculture, another central issue in this trade war, Trump announced that China would buy “massive amounts” of American soybeans and sorghum, declaring that American farmers would be “very happy”. In more detail, US Trade Secretary Scott Bessent said China committed to buying soybeans at the same levels as it did pre-trade war, for at least the next three years.

China used to be the biggest buyer of American soybeans, but stopped purchasing the product from the US completely amidst the escalating trade war. This meant American farmers were sitting on large stocks of unbought product, while China instead ordered from Brazil and Argentina.

This agreement would therefore provide much needed relief to the farmers, if the Chinese follow through with their promise. Five years ago, as part of another trade deal between the two countries, China had agreed to buy $200bn worth of US goods, much of which were supposed to be farm produce. But it never followed through, falling far short of the promised targets to this day.

Experts are thus pessimistic about this pledge as well. “It is unlikely that the Chinese will buy as much US soybean as they did before the trade war,” Even Pay, an agriculture expert at research firm Trivium China, told the Washington Post. “China has diversified its soybean supply.”

Image: Nordskov Media/ Flickr

No progress on technology issues

On the issue of AI chips, Trump said he had spoken to Xi about the export of Nvidia chips on Thursday, but shifted much of the responsibility for finding a solution on to Nvidia and the Chinese government. “We’re more of an arbitrator,” he said about his government’s role.

The chips have become a crucial flashpoint of the trade war in recent months, as the US has put restrictions on Nvidia selling its most advanced models in China, citing national security concerns. In return, the Chinese government has since pushed its domestic chipmakers to provide alternatives, now claiming the chips produced by Huawei and other tech giants are more advanced than Nvidia’s chips. 

Even after the US lifted some of its restrictions on the sale of less advanced chip models, the Chinese had directed firms not to buy from Nvidia, effectively freezing it out of the market.

Image: Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang at the Fortune Global Forum San Francisco Dinner – Fortune Global Forum Duy Ho

The meeting delivered even less clarity on the sale of TikTok, the second major tech topic between the two leaders. Despite his treasury secretary Scott Bessent announcing beforehand that the two sides had reached a “final deal” on Tiktok that would be signed off on the summit, Trump did not comment about it after the meeting had ended. A Chinese government spokesperson said China would “properly resolve the issues around TikTok.”

Trump has long had a feud with the social media site, which he sees as a national security threat. Announcing a ban at the beginning of his term, he has since been pushing to transfer ownership of the app to mostly American investors. This would require Chinese approval.

No mention of Taiwan, some of Ukraine

There were other topics the two did not cover in their roughly one-and-a-half-hour meeting as well, most importantly Taiwan. China claims the island as an integral part of its territory, and Xi has made its annexation a top priority; his main opponent in that effort is the US.

Image: President Donald Trump and President Volodomyr Zelenskyy – White House / Juliana Luz

The pair did speak about Russia’s war in Ukraine, with Trump saying that the two countries will work together to end the conflict. China is one of the main buyers of Russian oil, and Xi hosted Putin in Beijing recently. Nevertheless, the Chinese emphasised today that they supported peace talks.

But even as the summit concluded amicably even on foreign policy, experts predict this is unlikely to be the start of a new harmonious age between the two superpowers. “These are all issues that are relatively easy to roll back and accuse the other side of bad faith,” Ja Ian Chong, a professor of political science at the National University of Singapore told the New York Times. “I’ve seen this movie too many times.”

Ian Bremmer, founder of global consultancy Eurasia Group, agrees. “If you look at the totality of the relationship between the U.S. and China, it’s in a significantly more challenging place,” he told the Washington Post. Bremmer is sure: ”Longer term, the trajectory is more toward decoupling.”

Ben Howlett

Chief Executive, Curia

Ahead of her Leader’s speech to Conservative Party Conference, is Kemi Badenoch’s bid to reinvent the Conservatives faltering, leaving the party adrift, divided, and struggling for relevance?

If the images from Manchester this week are anything to go by, the Conservative Party’s attempt at reinvention is sputtering. Shadow Chancellor, Sir Mel Stride delivered his speech in a half-empty auditorium, an apt visual metaphor for a party struggling to sustain public attention and political relevance. Meanwhile, Kemi Badenoch’s leadership – born from bold promises of renewal – now looks increasingly hollow. The public seems to be losing patience with a semi-skimmed right-wing “version 2.0”, and is gravitating instead towards a full-fat opposition in Reform.

The optics of emptiness

Conferences are theatre. They are not just policy forums but demonstrations of vitality, energy, and momentum. A sparse hall this morning wasn’t just bad optics – it was a sign. The fewer the faces, the starker the message: the Conservatives are no longer a crowd-drawing force. The Guardian put it bluntly: “Humiliation upon humiliation for the Melster in front of half-full Tory crowd.”

This is not a trivial matter for party morale or media narrative. Empty seats amplify every stumble in speech, every pause, every awkward silence. Already, the contrast between past, bustling Tory conferences and this year’s subdued affair underscores the party’s struggle to remain relevant.

It is not just about numbers – because behind each chair is a person whose absence or absence of enthusiasm signals doubt, disengagement or desertion.

Badenoch: Bold claims, soft execution

Just days ago, Kemi Badenoch opened her leadership with contrition – a mea culpa, even: “We failed to bring numbers down and stop the boats”. Badenoch’s admission speaks the language of accountability and concession, something rare in modern politics. But it wrestles with a deeper crisis: her party is failing to persuade. Ambition alone is no substitute for coherence.

Badenoch has leant heavily on high-stakes proposals: withdrawing from the ECHR, repealing the Climate Change Act, promising tough immigration pledges. But boldness without credibility feels like theatre without weight. Critics have begun to argue she is trying to out-Reform Reform – that in chasing Nigel Farage’s supporters, she is alienating her moderate base. Former cabinet ministers warn that there may not be room in British politics for two populist right parties.

With Liberal Democrats coming second or snapping at the heels of the Party in its southern ‘heartlands’ – although it is hard to still define them as such given horrific local election results for the party – the Conservative Party’s lurch to the right is baffling.

The internal party response is telling: in a survey of Tory members, 50% say she should not lead the party into the next election. The conference, then, is as much a test of her legitimacy as a platform for her agenda.

Relevance in the era of full-fat opposition

What the Conservatives now lack is magnetism. Oppositions draw people: sceptics, activists, the disillusioned. They offer contrast. But the Tories seem a semi-skimmed alternative to Labour, not a full-cream opposition. At a time when the public is demanding sharper divides and clearer choices, a middle path looks bland. The hunger is not for another centre-right variant but for a bold counterpoint to what they see as Labour’s hegemony.

Reform UK looms as the hard-right disruptor, and Badenoch’s strategy seems reactive: mirror their tone and match their rhetoric, but without the same clarity or energy. The danger is that in trying to occupy the same rhetorical ground, the Conservatives will be judged as lesser, watered-down versions of the same thing.

The Conservatives’ current reinvention strategy is both misguided and falling short: they need to reinvent as credible, coherent and distinct, not as “more extreme”.

Why Badenoch is failing (so far)

The Conservative Party’s failure to cut through can be summarised in five key ways:

1. Lack of narrative coherence
   You cannot lead by declaration alone. Leadership demands that policies hang together – internally consistent, publicly plausible. The policy catalogue feels scattershot and often lacking in groundwork. Voters sniff this out.

2. Credibility gap
   Badenoch must rebuild trust after 14 years of shifting promises, internal chaos, and policy failures. She inherited more than a weak electoral position – she inherited cynicism. Bold proposals may ring hollow if they appear symbolic rather than operational.

3. Strategic confusion over Reform UK
   Is Reform a threat to be outflanked, absorbed, battled, or ignored? Badenoch’s approach seems to hedge on all angles. This lack of clear posture allows Reform to lead the narrative.

4. Internal discontent
   Her own party remains unconvinced. The polling data revealing that half of Tories would prefer a different leader before the next election is existential.

5. A weakening base and demographic challenge
   The Conservative base is ageing; younger voters are drifting left or to populist alternatives. Badenoch does not yet appear to have a compelling narrative to bridge that divide.

The coming test: do they become relevant or relic?

If this conference is a symbol, then the symbol is trouble. Badenoch will have to manage the questions no one wants to ask: What is the distinct, compelling vision the Tories are offering? Why should disillusioned voters stay? Can she re-energise a fractured base without alienating moderate wings?

If she fails to arrest the drift toward irrelevance, then her “renewal” will be remembered not as a rebirth but as a swansong. The public is reaching for full-fat opposition – bold, coherent, decisive – and so far, the Conservatives appear the substitute. That’s a dangerous place for a mainstream party to occupy.

All eyes are on the Conservative Party Leader for Wednesday’s Leader’s speech – will anyone listen?

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced the decision on Sunday, describing it as essential to “revive the hope of peace” for both Palestinians and Israelis.

This brings the number of UN member states recognising Palestine to 156. A figure that is representative of over 80 per cent of the international community.

While supporters hail it as a vital push towards ending the violence that has claimed tens of thousands of lives since October 2023, critics, including Israeli officials, argue it rewards terrorism and undermines direct negotiations.

Starmer emphasised that the move is “not a reward for Hamas,” insisting the group has “no future, no role in government, no role in security.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the announcements, stating they pave the way for “the State of Palestine to live side by side with the State of Israel in security, peace and good neighbourliness.”

However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the decision, saying, “You are giving a huge reward to terrorism,” and warning that a Palestinian state “will not happen.”

The US, a key Israeli ally, expressed reservations, with officials noting it breaks from Washington’s stance. Yet, the wave of recognitions reflects growing frustration with the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where reports of starvation and devastation have horrified the international community.

UK Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy acknowledged the limitations, saying, “Will this feed children? No, it won’t. That’s down to humanitarian aid.”

The recent wave of recognition by France, Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, and Monaco were c loosely followed by that of Britain, Canada and Australia’s.

This reflects widespread concern over the conflict in Gaza, with the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF,) having claimed 65,000 lives over the span of just under 2 years. However, what is the entire story?

1967 – The 6-day War & UN Res. 242

Following Israel’s participation in the 1956 Suez crisis, and the Palestinian refugee crisis that came about after British allotment of land to displaced Jews following WW2, a devastating 6-day war broke out in June 1967.

This saw Israeli settlers occupy the West Bank, The Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights. This caused the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and prompted the United Nations to adopt resolution 242, which called for Israel’s withdrawal from “territories,” in exchange for lasting peace and a settlement for refugees. The vague language of “territories,” has fuelled much of the conflict since.  

The 1970s – Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and Observer Status

Fuelled by hopes of retaliation following the Arabic coalition’s loss to Israel in 1967, October 1973 saw the 19-day war between Israel, and an Arabic coalition led by Egypt and Syria. Dubbed the Yom Kippur War, after the suspicious day for those of the Jewish faith, the conflict claimed the lives of an estimated 8000 to 18,000 people, although that number is disputed based on the publication.

The aftermath of the war resulted in the UN’s adoption of Res. 3236, which affirmed Palestine’s right to self-govern, independence and return of the land that was occupied. This resolution also granted the PLO observer status in the United Nations.

Chairman Yasser Arafat addressed the assembly, declaring: “Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter’s gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.”

This era saw rising support for the state of Palestine despite terrorist attacks like those of the 1972 Munich Olympic bombings that hindered diplomatic efforts and claimed the lives of 9 hostages and was carried out by Black September, a militant organization.

The 1980s and 90s – Independence, Intifadas & The Oslo Accords

The dawn of the decade saw Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 to eliminate PLO bases, which instigated the Sabra and Shatila massacres. The first Intifada erupted in December of 1987 against Israeli occupation, and captured the world’s attention till its eventual culmination in September of 1993.

With alliances made between various Palestinian organisations like the PLO, the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine, Democratic Front of Palestine, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The end of the Intifada saw the PLO declare independence and enshrining Algiers as the centre of the Palestinian state, while hoping to achieve pre-1967 borders. 

The 1990s saw the PLO’s support of Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein, further alienating their cause and straining diplomatic ties with the permanent members of the UNGA and UN Security Council.

The 1991 Madrid peace talks amidst the Intifada hoped to achieve lasting peace by enforcing UN resolutions 242 and 338.

It was closely followed by the 1993 Oslo Accords, where Israel and the PLO mutually recognised each other, which allowed for the Palestinian Authority to “self-govern in a limited capacity” in Gaza and the West Bank.

Arafat and Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin shook hands at the White House with then US President Bill Clinton as the mediator. However, Rabin’s eventual assassination in 1995 saw negotiations falter.

The Noughties – 2 State Road Map & UN Upgrades

The dawn of the millennium saw the UN Security Council endorse a two-state solution in 2002. In 20023, they endorsed the “Quartet Road Map,” which outlined steps to statehood for Palestine and the “Arab Peace Initiative,” which offered normalization for withdrawal.

Israel eventually unilaterally disengaged in Gaza, which preceded THE 2006 Hamas election victory. By 2010, 122 countries had recognized a Palestinian state. 2011 saw UN voting Palestine into the organisation with membership with 120 supporters.

This also led to Palestine gaining UNESCO’s non-0member observer status in 2012, which enabled access to institutions like the International Criminal Court.

2010s and 20s – “The deal of the century!”, October 7^th and Accusations of Genocide and Starvation

UN resolution 2334 in 2016 declared Israeli settlements on Palestinian land illegal. The Trump administration in the US brokered the “Deal of the Century,” which favoured Israel.

This era also brought with it, allegations of corruption, with some accusations levied against Israel for conducting a backdoor Oil deal with Emirati states as part of the 2021 Abraham accords. 

The October 2023 Hamas attacks that claimed the lives of nearly 2000 lives in Israel and saw hundreds of hostages being taken, some being kept in Gaza to this day.

However, major political figures from various countries have called Israel’s response disproportionate, as it has claimed the lives of anywhere between 60,000 to 65,000 Palestinians.

The International Criminal Court, to which neither America nor Israel are members, ruled that the occupation was illegal in 2024, demanding immediate withdrawal. 

Arrest warrants were issued for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, cabinet member Yoav Gallant and leaders of Hamas, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, also known as Mohammed Deif.

Recognitions surged to 139 by 2020, then to 151 by September 21, 2025, with Norway, Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia in 2024.

Featured image via Sco_Bra / Shutterstock.

The turning point came in the aftermath of the Hamas-led attacks of 7 October 2023, among the deadliest in Israel’s history, which killed nearly 1,200 people and saw around 250 Israeli civilians and soldiers taken hostage. Some remain in captivity, while others have since been killed.

Israel’s military response has unleashed one of the bloodiest chapters of the conflict. According to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, more than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023. Entire neighbourhoods lie in ruins, famine has been confirmed by international monitors, and humanitarian aid remains severely disrupted, leaving Gaza on the brink of uninhabitability. Israel, meanwhile, has endured continued rocket fire, instability, and attacks such as the September 2025 bus stop shooting in Jerusalem that killed six people.

Both sides now face international scrutiny. The International Court of Justice has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as Mohamed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, Hamas’s top military commander, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The devastation has re-energised global calls for a lasting settlement. France and Saudi Arabia recently co-hosted a two-state solution conference, producing the “New York Declaration,” which demanded an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and the disarmament of Hamas as initial steps towards establishing a Palestinian state. Since then, momentum has built among countries pledging to recognise Palestinian statehood, signalling a significant diplomatic shift.

Which countries have pivoted?

The current wave of recognition began in spring 2024, when Spain, Norway and Ireland recognised Palestine between May and June. Slovenia followed later that year through a parliamentary vote.

Image: Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez attends the opening of the United Nations General Assembly – La Moncloa /

Almost exactly a year later, with the conflict escalating, France and its European allies ramped up diplomatic pressure over Israel’s actions in Gaza. France and Saudi Arabia co-chaired the two-state solution conference in July 2025, after which the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that France would recognise Palestine in September. President Emmanuel Macron framed the decision as part of a broader push for a “durable political horizon for peace,” tied to conditions including a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and reforms within Palestinian governance.

The conference triggered a new wave of pledges. Canada, Australia and the UK announced they would recognise Palestinian statehood once conditions were met, such as Palestinian commitments to democratic elections, improved governance and recognition of Israel’s right to exist, alongside Israeli commitments to halt settlement expansion, end hostilities in Gaza, and commit to a two-state solution.

Coordinated announcements came on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly high-level week in September, when Canada, Australia and the UK declared recognition of Palestine. Portugal joined them hours later.

In the days that followed, France formally recognised Palestinian statehood, joined overnight by Malta, Monaco, Andorra and Luxembourg.

Yet the response was not universal. Germany and Italy refused to take part. Chancellor Friedrich Merz argued that “recognition must be the final step in a peace process that results in a two-state solution.” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni stated that Italy would only recognise Palestine if Hamas released all hostages and was excluded from any future government.

Singapore also weighed in, saying it would recognise Palestine once it had an effective government that accepted Israel’s right to exist and renounced terrorism. While opposing Israel’s undermining of the two-state solution, Singapore announced sanctions on settler groups in the West Bank.

What will recognition achieve?

For many governments, recognition is tied directly to the urgent need for a ceasefire. More than 65,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023, according to Gaza health authorities, and a recent UN Commission of Inquiry report concluded that Israel was committing genocide.

Recognition aims to strengthen Palestine’s standing in international diplomacy and law. For instance, when Palestine attempted to accede to the Geneva Conventions in 1989, Switzerland rejected the application, citing “uncertainty” over the existence of a Palestinian state. Today, recognition by powerful states may help remove such obstacles and give Palestine greater leverage in negotiations.

The move also places new responsibilities on European and Western governments. Recognition not only compels them to support Palestinian statehood but also to balance this with their ties to Israel.

Image: Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu – Office of the Prime Minister of Israel / Ben Amos

For Netanyahu, the stakes could not be higher. He has repeatedly declared that “there will be no Palestinian state” and vowed to fight “against the slanderous propaganda aimed at us.” The Israeli leader has warned that recognition constitutes “an absurd prize for terrorism” and plans to coordinate his response in an upcoming meeting with Donald Trump.

A turning point, but not a settlement

Recognition does not in itself create a Palestinian state. The path remains blocked by Hamas’s continued presence in Gaza, the complexities of Palestinian governance, and the fact that any bid for full UN membership would require approval by the Security Council, where the United States holds a veto.

Yet 2025 marks a turning point. For the first time, Israel’s closest allies have coordinated recognition of Palestinian statehood, signalling that their patience is waning. While the immediate impact on the ground is limited, the diplomatic message is clear: countries are raising the pressure on Israel to accept a negotiated peace.

Featured Image via Ben Dance – FCDO

Key elements of the Lib Dems’ motion include calling on the government to agree to a European Youth Mobility Scheme, immediately begin talks with Brussels on establishing a new UK-EU customs union, and secure associate membership of the European Defence Agency,

The motion also described the Lib Dems as the ‘only voices in parliament consistently and unashamedly’ calling for a closer relationship with the EU and said the best way to ensure such a relationship is by ensuring that as many Lib Dem MPs and councillors as possible are elected across Britain.

As well as calling for closer ties with the EU, today’s motion also called for Britain to ‘reduce (its) strategic dependence on an unpredictable President Trump.’ The US President was a prominent topic in the debates preceding this morning’s vote, with MP for Tunbridge Wells Mike Martin describing him as the ‘most unreliable’ partner Britain has ever had in the White House, and Hannah Betsworth from the Liberal Democrats in Europe group criticising his Secretary of Health Robert F Kennedy Jr for abandoning evidence-based standards.

Bettsworth also described the motion as a ‘no-brainer’ for the UK’s pharmaceutical industry, due to its demand for the British government to secure collaboration and mutual recognition agreements with European regulatory bodies, including the European Medicines Agency and European Chemicals Agency. She argued that the increased efficiency this would bring would help the UK maintain its status as a ‘global life sciences hub’ and ‘defend scientific expertise.’

The debates also made it clear that the Lib Dems believe that Brexit has been a disaster for the UK economy, with the party’s spokesperson for trade Clive Lewis MP claiming that the country’s future prosperity relies on closer relations with Brussels and arguing that red tape caused by the Conservative’s sub-par Brexit negotiations is ‘strangling’ British business.

Lewis claimed that cutting such red tape could generate £25 billion per year for the exchequer, whilst Councillor Richard Kirkpatrick cited the European Movement’s Business Impact Report which found that 97% of companies feel Brexit has been bad for their business and that 98% would support increased access to the single market.Today’s motion hopes to resolve these complaints by calling on the current government to immediately begin talks with on the establishment of a bespoke UK-EU Customs Union.

However arguably the most prominent topic of both the motion and the surrounding debates was defence, with it being the Lib Dems’ position that a closer defensive alliance with European nations is the key to protecting the continent from Russian aggression, at a time when, according to the arguably hyperbolic Mike Martin, the geopolitical landscape of Europe is arguably the worst it’s ever been.

Within the motion the Lib Dems criticise the UK government for failing to make progress on securing associate membership of the European Defence Agency and praise themselves for their efforts to establish a new European Rearmament Bank that would provide funding for defence programmes across Britain and the EU.

Additionally, to highlight just how much emphasis the Lib Dems are placing on national security, 3 of the motion’s 7 calls to action are directly related to the defence sector, with point 5 calling for the government to secure the aforementioned associate EDA member status, point 6 calling for the expansion of defensive co-operation with EU and NATO member states, and point 7 calling on Downing Street to commit to ‘recognise the importance of promoting stability in the Balkans’ by joining the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Furthermore, one of the 2 amendments made to the motion criticised the government for failing to secure access to the EU’s Security Action for Europe fund; this amendment passed with an overwhelming majority.

Invited to speak during this morning’s debate was Edward Lucas, a journalist, security expert, and the man behind the aforementioned European Rearmament Bank proposal. He argued that Europe was at ‘5 minutes past midnight when it comes to…security’ and said that the continent had an ‘enormous task’ ahead when it comes to defending itself against ‘imperialist’ Russia.

Lucas also added that the USA was no longer a reliable defence partner for the UK, echoing a sentiment party leader Ed Davey displayed in an interview with PoliticsUK on Sunday, and thus they would not be welcome in his proposed bank, which he said would see rearmament efforts actually make Europeans safer, as opposed to merely doubling the share prices of arms manufacturers.

Overall, in passing this motion, the Liberal Democrats have sought to draw a dividing line between themselves and both the Conservative and Labour parties, positioning themselves as the most unequivocally pro-European force in British politics.

Today’s debates underlined how deeply the party sees closer cooperation with the EU as not only an economic necessity but also a strategic imperative in an increasingly unstable world. By tying together calls for deeper defence integration, increased life-sciences collaboration, and a new UK EU Customs Union, the Lib Dems are betting that voters share their belief that Britain’s future security and prosperity lie firmly in Europe, and that the long-term path inevitably leads back towards EU membership.