London — When Keir Starmer was elected to lead Britain’s Labour Party in 2020, right after the party suffered its worst general election defeat in 85 years, he made it his mission to make the party “electable.”
Four years later, after 14 years of governments led by the rival Conservative Party, Starmer is poised to take Britain’s top job.
With almost all the results in, Labour had won 410 seats in Parliament’s 650-seat House of Commons and the Conservatives 118.
Outgoing Prime Minister Rishi Sunak conceded, saying the voters had delivered a “sobering verdict.”
The 61-year-old Starmer has faced years of criticism for a perceived lack of charisma, but his methodical mission to drag Labour back toward the center of British politics and broaden its appeal to voters worked. Starmer and Labour have also, indisputably, capitalized on years of economic pain and political chaos under the Conservative Party, whose parliamentary majority was eviscerated.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer delivers a speech and takes media questions on July 2, 2024 in Norton Canes, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Chris Furlong / Getty Images
Professor Sir John Curtice, a political analyst and elections expert who, through decades of TV commentary has become something of a British national institution himself, told the BBC just a couple days before the election that there was “more chance of lightning striking twice in the same place” than Sunak remaining in power.
Sir Keir Starmer — the former lawyer was knighted for services to criminal justice — has, through years of chaos (you may remember Partygate, or perhaps even Prime Minister Liz Truss’ 50 days in power) projected an almost dull managerialism that appears to have become a beacon for a welcome return to political normalcy.
Starmer grew up in a small town in Surrey, just outside London. His mother worked for the National Health Service, Britain’s free public health care system, and his father was a toolmaker — a fact that Starmer repeated so often during the election campaign that it became a meme.
His mother suffered for all her life from Still’s disease, a type of inflammatory arthritis, and died only a few weeks after he was first elected to the British Parliament in 2015. His father died three years later. Starmer has said his relationship with his father was strained, and that never telling him, “I love you and I respect you” is “the one thing I do regret.”
Starmer was the first member of his family to go to university, after which he helped run a left-wing magazine called Socialist Alternatives. He then became a lawyer, rising up the ranks to become the head of public prosecutions in 2008, running the British government’s Crown Prosecution Service. He received his knighthood in 2014, the year before he turned to politics.
Despite his legitimate background in tackling serious crime, Starmer has never managed to shake the image of a relatively boring politician. He’s even leaned into it on occasion.
“If, in the end, that is the only bit of mud left to sling, then I’m pretty comfortable,” he told Britain’s ITV in January. “If they are calling you boring, you’re winning.”
What are Keir Starmer’s policies?
Throughout his tenure as Labour leader, Starmer has tried to make his party more electable by forcing out individuals seen as entrenched in its socialist left wing — the faction that ran the party under its previous leader, Jeremy Corbyn (whose cabinet Starmer served in, incidentally).
After Corbyn called the findings of an inquiry into antisemitism in the party “dramatically overstated,” Starmer suspended him.
“Sometimes you have to be ruthless to be a good leader,” Starmer told Esquire about the episode.
Starmer’s move toward centrism has been criticized by left-leaning members of his own party and others. He irked many by backtracking on several key pledges, including that Labour would increase income tax, scrap university tuition fees and nationalize the majority of Britain’s public services.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer speaks to media on the final day of campaigning before Britain’s national general election, July 3, 2024, in Whitland, Wales.
In a recent speech, Starmer said he had a long-term “big, bold plan” for Britain. But he cautioned that “we need first steps.”
Those, according to the BBC, include clamping down on tax avoidance, shortening NHS patient waiting lists and recruiting more teachers and neighborhood police officers. He also wants to negotiate a better deal with the European Union, given the catastrophic economic consequences of the U.K.’s “Brexit.”
He said his unflashy election pledges were a “down payment” on what the Labour Party can offer Britain if it is given enough time.
“I’m not going to make a promise before the election that I’m not comfortable we can actually deliver,” he’s stressed.
“A lot of people on the left will accuse him of letting them down, betraying socialist principles. And a lot of people on the right accuse him of flip-flopping,” Tim Bale, a political scientist at Queen Mary University of London, told The Associated Press. “But, hey, if that’s what it takes to win, then I think that tells you something about Starmer’s character. He will do whatever it takes — and has done whatever it takes — to get into government.”
How might Starmer influence U.S.-U.K. relations?
With British and American election cycles coinciding for the first time since 1992, there’s a lot of uncertainty about how U.S.-U.K. relations could look by the end of the year.
Starmer has spoken admiringly of President Biden, particularly his focus on job creation and investment in domestic industry. The Economist even described him as “infatuated” with the American president.
Senior Labour figures have reportedly met secretly with Democratic counterparts already.
If former President Donald Trump were to win in November, U.S.-U.K. relations would likely be less chummy.
Despite her being a Conservative and thus ostensibly on the same side of the political aisle, Trump had a difficult relationship with former Prime Minister Theresa May during his first term in office. He got on better with the more populist — and many say, more Trumpian — Boris Johnson.
“A Biden White House would find Starmer a well-wisher and useful spear-carrier,” Eliot Wilson, a former senior official in the U.K. House of Commons wrote in The Hill. “For Trump, he would prove a vague annoyance, and could not be counted on to echo the wilder MAGA phrasebook.”
The reality for U.K. leaders, from any party, almost a decade after Britain’s exit from the EU, is that the long-touted “special relationship” with Washington has never been more vital.
“We will work with whoever is elected,” Starmer has said. “We have a special relationship with the U.S. that transcends whoever the president is.”
What comes next?
Final results from Thursday’s voting will be published Friday morning, and Sir Keir will be the next British Prime Minister.
Sunak will resign and King Charles III will quickly take the necessary but largely ceremonial step of inviting Starmer to form a new government.
Starmer will then appear to make his first speech outside 10 Downing Street, the official residence of Britain’s top elected official.
Once the formalities are completed, Starmer will receive briefings from key members of the civil service and the intelligence community, select the members of his new cabinet and start taking phone calls from world leaders.
And then? Well, then there’s the often unglamorous business of running the country.
Was the first female chairman of the Conservative Party.
Was introduced to her husband in 1976 at an Oxford Conservative Association dance by Benazir Bhutto, who later became the prime minister of Pakistan.
Lost both of her parents in her 20s.
Co-founded Women2Win, an organization dedicated to increasing the number of conservative women in Parliament.
Is the second female prime minister of Great Britain. Margaret Thatcher was the first. She served from 1979 to 1990.
1977 – Takes a job with the Bank of England.
1985 – Begins working for the Association for Payment Clearing Services as an adviser on international affairs.
1986-1994 – Councillor in the London borough of Merton.
May 1997 – Elected Conservative Member of Parliament for Maidenhead.
1999-2001 – Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
2001-2002 – Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
2004-2005 – Shadow Secretary of State for the Family.
May 2010-July 2016 – Home Secretary.
2012 – Introduces the controversial Data Communications Bill, which would require UK internet service providers and communications companies to collect more data about users’ online activities. Opponents call it the “Snoopers’ Charter.”
April 17, 2018 – May apologizes for her government’s treatment of some Caribbean immigrants to the UK and insists they were still welcome in the country. The apology comes amid widespread condemnation of the government’s treatment of the so-called Windrush generation, the first large group of Caribbean migrants to arrive in the UK after World War II.
July 6, 2018 – At the end of a cabinet meeting on Brexit, May announces a proposal that aims to preserve free trade with the European Union. In return for free access to its biggest export market, the UK would commit to following EU rules and regulations on goods and accept a limited role for its highest court. Two cabinet members – Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson – resign days later in protest to the plan.
July 17, 2018 – May survives a crucial vote in parliament when MPs vote 307 to 301 against a proposal by Remain-supporting members of her Conservative party that would have significantly undermined her Brexit strategy.
September 21, 2018 – After an EU summit in Salzburg, Austria, at which her Brexit plan was largely rejected, May called for the EU to “respect” the British position and the Brexit vote. Negotiations, she said, are “at an impasse.”
December 12, 2018 – Survives a vote of no-confidence among Tory members of parliament, garnering 200 of the 317 possible votes. The vote was called after May postponed a parliamentary decision on a Brexit deal amid signs it would not be approved.
January 16, 2019 – May survives a vote of no-confidence in the House of Commons. Lawmakers voted 325 to 306 in favor of the government remaining in power. Following the vote, May calls on Britain’s political parties to “put self-interest aside” and word together on a compromise Brexit deal.
May 24, 2019 – May announces that she will resign as leader of the Conservative Party on June 7th. She will stay on as prime minister until a successor is chosen.
Britain is providing the executive an extra £3.3 billion to start patching holes in services and pay long-delayed wage hikes that just triggered the biggest public sector strike in Northern Ireland’s history. The trouble is, the head of Northern Ireland’s civil service, Jayne Brady, has already told the new leaders that these eye-watering sums are still too small to pay the required bills. The U.K. expects Stormont to raise regional taxes, something local leaders have been loath to do.
If anything can unite unionist and republican politicians, it’s their shared demand for the U.K. Treasury to keep sending more moolah — even though the British government already has committed to pay Northern Ireland over the odds into perpetuity at a new rate of £1.24 versus an equivalent £1 spent in England.
Money demands and spending priorities should underpin short-term stability at Stormont. But a U.K. general election looms within months and DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson wants to reverse his party’s losses to Sinn Féin. That could be complicated by the fact that he’s just compromised on Brexit trade rules in a fashion that distresses and confuses many within his own divided party, leaving him vulnerable.
To strengthen his leadership, Donaldson boosted pragmatic allies and sought to neuter less reasonable opponents in Saturday’s DUP moves at Stormont.
The assembly’s new non-partisan speaker will be DUP lawmaker Edwin Poots, who defeated Donaldson for the party leadership in 2021 only to be tossed out almost immediately.
That move puts Poots — who used his previous role as Stormont’s agriculture minister to block essential resources for the required post-Brexit checks at ports — into a new strait-jacket of neutrality.
Little-Pengelly, by contrast, is one of Donaldson’s most trusted lieutenants and a Stormont insider. He put her into his own assembly seat when, shortly after the 2022 election, Donaldson dumped it in favor of staying an MP in London.
While Stormont is never more than one crisis away from another collapse, for Saturday, peace reigned — and an Irish republican, committed to Northern Ireland’s eventual dissolution, is in charge of making the place work.
BELFAST — First its government collapsed. Then austerity began to bite. Now fresh elections are set to be cancelled, and tens of thousands of workers are going on strike.
This is Northern Ireland in 2024 — a land of political deadlock, public sector cuts and mass labor unrest, with neither British ministers in London nor local powerbrokers the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) willing to do what is needed to restore a coherent government in this ever-divided corner of the United Kingdom.
Nearly two years after the DUP first sabotaged the Northern Ireland Executive — the cross-community government at the heart of the region’s decades-old peace process — its leadership appears no closer to ending its boycott on cooperation with Sinn Féin. The Irish republicans overtook their DUP opponents as the most popular party at the last Stormont election in May 2022, but have been waiting ever since to lead a government under a power-sharing system the DUP refuses to revive.
Similarly unwilling to fill the political vacuum is Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, who refuses to resume “direct rule” from Westminster. Northern Ireland was governed directly from London through most of its decades of bloodshed during the 20th century, and through a previous collapse of powersharing at Stormont between 2002-07.
At least partly filling the vacuum over the past year have been Northern Ireland’s senior civil servants, abandoned to run their country without the help of elected politicians. They protest they lack both the power and democratic mandate to make essential spending and cost-cutting decisions — a weakness that has left public services to wither from within.
This long-running crisis has triggered months of labor unrest, finally reducing Northern Ireland to a standstill on Thursday as 16 unions staged the region’s first coordinated mass strike in a half-century. It may not be the last.
“This is a campaign we will continue,” said Gerry Murphy of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. “This is a campaign we will win.”
Labor pains
More than 170,000 workers — nearly a fifth of the entire workforce — shut down schools, transport links, non-emergency healthcare and almost all government-funded services on Thursday in a mass demand for long-withheld pay raises.
The promised salary hikes were secured in principle years ago as part of wider U.K. labor agreements, but most of this money has yet to reach paychecks and pensions in Northern Ireland because the relevant Stormont ministers aren’t in office. In their absence, the U.K. Treasury is withholding the required funds.
That was supposed to change as part of a conditional funding package that Heaton-Harris presented to local parties last month in a bid to break the DUP logjam. If Democratic Unionist leader Jeffrey Donaldson agreed to lead his party back to Stormont, Heaton-Harris announced, the U.K. would provide £3.3 billion in exceptional financial supports to make the relaunch of power-sharing a success. Included in the package: £584 million for the outstanding pay claims.
But to the exasperation of other parties, and despite Donaldson’s own efforts to telegraph a coming move, the DUP leader failed to persuade his most powerful deputies to grasp the offer as a moment for compromise.
Donaldson since has insisted that talks with U.K. government officials will drag out indefinitely until the DUP wins further concessions on Northern Ireland’s complex post-Brexit trading arrangements, which unionists fear are pushing the economy toward a united Ireland.
The DUP leader failed to persuade his most powerful deputies to grasp the offer as a moment for compromise | Charles McQuillan/Getty Images
Indeed, dangling billions in front of the DUP seems only to have backfired. Heaton-Harris has repeatedly said the £3.3 billion will not be forthcoming until the DUP returns to Stormont — a condition that both British unionists and Irish nationalists have denounced as blackmail.
Mass unrest
Reflecting that anger, tens of thousands of striking workers braved freezing conditions on Thursday to march in central Belfast, Londonderry and Enniskillen, venting their anger and demanding their salaries be boosted to the levels of their professional peers in England, Scotland and Wales.
As one example, they cited how a newly qualified teacher in Northern Ireland earns around £24,000 a year, versus £30,000 elsewhere in the U.K. Official U.K. statistics indicate that public sector workers in Northern Ireland have seen the value of their incomes fall by 11 percent in real terms during the past two years of government collapse.
Heaton-Harris, an arch Brexiteer who was appointed to the post by ex-PM Liz Truss during her brief Downing Street reign, has struggled to find any pressure point that works on Donaldson, whose DUP is frequently cited as the most stubborn political party in Europe.
Heaton-Harris’ most common threat — to call an early election for Stormont — has proved particularly absurd because it would potentially help the DUP. Donaldson would hope to claw back ground lost to politicians representing the moderate middle ground, who did unusually well in the 2022 vote.
Indeed, the prospect of fresh elections is one reason why Donaldson keeps playing for time. Accepting a deal now — and so accepting the current post-Brexit trade arrangements are here to stay — would likely split his party and drive support toward Traditional Unionist Voice, an even harder-line unionist rival that rejects working with Sinn Féin in all circumstances.
Reflecting that anger, tens of thousands of striking workers braved freezing conditions on Thursday to march in central Belfast | Paul Faith/AFP via Getty Images
And so the stasis — and the misery — looks set to continue.
The unions behind Thursday’s mass strike have vowed to conduct a rolling series of similar protests until Heaton-Harris untethers their pay demands from any proposed DUP sweetheart deal.
But Heaton-Harris looks poised to kick the Stormont can down the road yet again, meaning Northern Ireland’s public services keep suffering via piecemeal funding half-measures.
The minister is expected to unveil emergency legislation next week that gives both himself, and Northern Ireland’s permanent secretaries, a new “hybrid” mix of powers and responsibilities over the region.
But a former permanent secretary who oversaw the Brexit process in Northern Ireland, Andrew McCormick, said Heaton-Harris’ mismanagement of the situation to date meant neither the Stormont mandarins nor the secretary of state himself “have a legal basis for the strategic decisions that are needed. The government can and should change course as a matter of urgency. Abdication is not acceptable.”
The legislation also is expected to delay, once again, the legally required date for the next Stormont election to early 2025 — by which time a U.K.-wide general election will likely have ended the Conservative government’s 14-year reign and turned Northern Ireland into a problem for the British Labour Party.
BRUSSELS — Western leaders are grappling with how to handle two era-defining wars in the Middle East and in Ukraine. But there’s another issue, one far closer to home, that’s derailing governments in Europe and America: migration.
In recent days, U.S. President Joe Biden, his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak all hit trouble amid intense domestic pressure to tackle immigration; all three emerged weakened as a result. The stakes are high as American, British and European voters head to the polls in 2024.
“There is a temptation to hunt for quick fixes,” said Rashmin Sagoo, director of the international law program at the Chatham House think tank in London. “But irregular migration is a hugely challenging issue. And solving it requires long-term policy thinking beyond national boundaries.”
With election campaigning already under way, long-term plans may be hard to find. Far-right, anti-migrant populists promising sharp answers are gaining support in many Western democracies, leaving mainstream parties to count the costs. Less than a month ago in the Netherlands, pragmatic Dutch centrists lost to an anti-migrant radical.
Who will be next?
Rishi Sunak, United Kingdom
In Britain, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is under pressure from members of his own ruling Conservative party who fear voters will punish them over the government’s failure to get a grip on migration.
U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speaks during a press conference in Dover on June 5, 2023 in Dover, England | Pool photo by Yui Mok/WPA via Getty Images
Seven years ago, voters backed Brexit because euroskeptic campaigners promised to “Take Back Control” of the U.K.’s borders. Instead, the picture is now more chaotic than ever. The U.K. chalked up record net migration figures last month, and the government has failed so far to stop small boats packed with asylum seekers crossing the English Channel.
Sunak is now in the firing line. He made a pledge to “Stop the Boats” central to his premiership. In the process, he ignited a war in his already divided party about just how far Britain should go.
Under Sunak’s deal with Rwanda, the central African nation agreed to resettle asylum seekers who arrived on British shores in small boats. The PM says the policy will deter migrants from making sea crossings to the U.K. in the first place. But the plan was struck down by the Supreme Court in London, and Sunak’s Tories now can’t agree on what to do next.
Having survived what threatened to be a catastrophic rebellion in parliament on Tuesday, the British premier still faces a brutal battle in the legislature over his proposed Rwanda law early next year.
Time is running out for Sunak to find a fix. An election is expected next fall.
Emmanuel Macron, France
The French president suffered an unexpected body blow when the lower house of parliament rejected his flagship immigration bill this week.
French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, on June 21, 2023 | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
After losing parliamentary elections last year, getting legislation through the National Assembly has been a fraught process for Macron. He has been forced to rely on votes from the right-wing Les Républicains party on more than one occasion.
Macron’s draft law on immigration was meant to please both the conservatives and the center-left with a carefully designed mix of repressive and liberal measures. But in a dramatic upset, the National Assembly, which is split between centrists, the left and the far right, voted against the legislation on day one of debates.
Now Macron is searching for a compromise. The government has tasked a joint committee of senators and MPs with seeking a deal. But it’s likely their text will be harsher than the initial draft, given that the Senate is dominated by the centre right — and this will be a problem for Macron’s left-leaning lawmakers.
If a compromise is not found, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally will be able to capitalize on Macron’s failure ahead of the European Parliament elections next June.
But even if the French president does manage to muddle through, the episode is likely to mark the end of his “neither left nor right” political offer. It also raises serious doubts about his ability to legislate on controversial topics.
Joe Biden, United States
The immigration crisis is one of the most vexing and longest-running domestic challenges for President Joe Biden. He came into office vowing to reverse the policies of his predecessor, Donald Trump, and build a “fair and humane” system, only to see Congress sit on his plan for comprehensive immigration reform.
U.S. President Joe Biden pauses as he gives a speech in Des Moines, Iowa on July 15, 2019 | Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The White House has seen a deluge of migrants at the nation’s southern border, strained by a decades-old system unable to handle modern migration patterns.
Ahead of next year’s presidential election, Republicans have seized on the issue. GOP state leaders have filed lawsuits against the administration and sent busloads of migrants to Democrat-led cities, while in Washington, Republicans in Congress have tied foreign aid to sweeping changes to border policy, putting the White House in a tight spot as Biden officials now consider a slate of policies they once forcefully rejected.
The political pressure has spilled into the other aisle. States and cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, are pressuring Washington leaders to do more in terms of providing additional federal aid and revamping southern border policies to limit the flow of asylum seekers into the United States.
New York City has had more than 150,000 new arrivals over the past year and a half — forcing cuts to new police recruits, cutting library hours and limiting sanitation duties. Similar problems are playing out in cities like Chicago, which had migrants sleeping in buses or police stations.
The pressure from Democrats is straining their relationship with the White House. New York City Mayor Eric Adams runs the largest city in the nation, but hasn’t spoken with Biden in nearly a year. “We just need help, and we’re not getting that help,” Adams told reporters Tuesday.
Olaf Scholz, Germany
Migration has been at the top of the political agenda in Germany for months, with asylum applications rising to their highest levels since the 2015 refugee crisis triggered by Syria’s civil war.
The latest influx has posed a daunting challenge to national and local governments alike, which have struggled to find housing and other services for the migrants, not to mention the necessary funds.
The inability to limit the number of refugees has put German Chancellor Olaf Scholz under immense pressure | Michele Tantussi/Getty Images
The inability — in a country that ranks among the most coveted destinations for asylum seekers — to limit the number of refugees has put German Chancellor Olaf Scholz under immense pressure. In the hope of stemming the flow, Germany recently reinstated border checks with Poland, the Czech Republic and Switzerland, hoping to turn back the refugees before they hit German soil.
Even with border controls, refugee numbers remain high, which has been a boon to the far right. Germany’s anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party has reached record support in national polls.
Since overtaking Scholz’s Social Democrats in June, the AfD has widened its lead further, recording 22 percent in recent polls, second only to the center-right Christian Democrats.
The AfD is expected to sweep three state elections next September in eastern Germany, where support for the party and its reactionary anti-foreigner policies is particularly strong.
The center-right, meanwhile, is hardening its position on migration and turning its back on the open-border policies championed by former Chancellor Angela Merkel. Among the new priorities is a plan to follow the U.K.’s Rwanda model for processing refugees in third countries.
Karl Nehammer, Austria
Like Scholz, the Austrian leader’s approval ratings have taken a nosedive thanks to concerns over migration. Austria has taken steps to tighten controls at its southern and eastern borders.
Though the tactic has led to a drop in arrivals by asylum seekers, it also means Austria has effectively suspended the EU’s borderless travel regime, which has been a boon to the regional economy for decades.
Austria has effectively suspended the EU’s borderless travel regime, which has been a boon to the regional economy for decades | Thomas Kronsteiner/Getty Images
The far-right Freedom Party has had a commanding lead for more than a year, topping the ruling center-right in polls by 10 points. That puts the party in a position to win national elections scheduled for next fall, which would mark an unprecedented rightward tilt in a country whose politics have been dominated by the center since World War II.
Giorgia Meloni, Italy
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni made her name in opposition, campaigning on a radical far-right agenda. Since winning power in last year’s election, she has shifted to more moderate positions on Ukraine and Europe.
Meloni now needs to appease her base on migration, a topic that has dominated Italian debate for years. Instead, however, she has been forced to grant visas to hundreds of thousands of legal migrants to cover labor shortages. Complicating matters, boat landings in Italy are up by about 50 per cent year-on-year despite some headline-grabbling policies and deals to stop arrivals.
While Meloni has ordered the construction of detention centers where migrants will be held pending repatriation, in reality local conditions in African countries and a lack of repatriation agreements present serious impediments.
Italy’s Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni at a press conference on March 9, 2023 | Tiziana Fabi/AFP via Getty Images
Although she won the support of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for her cause, a potential EU naval mission to block departures from Africa would risk breaching international law.
Meloni has tried other options, including a deal with Tunisia to help stop migrant smuggling, but the plan fell apart before it began. A deal with Albania to offshore some migrant detention centers also ran into trouble.
Now Meloni is in a bind. The migration issue has brought her into conflict with France and Germany as she attempts to create a reputation as a moderate conservative.
If she fails to get to grips with the issue, she is likely to lose political ground. Her coalition partner Matteo Salvini is known as a hardliner on migration, and while they’re officially allies for now, they will be rivals again later.
Geert Wilders, the Netherlands
The government of long-serving Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte was toppled over migration talks in July, after which he announced his exit from politics. In subsequent elections, in which different parties vied to fill Rutte’s void, far-right firebrand Geert Wilders secured a shock win. On election night he promised to curb the “asylum tsunami.”
Wilders is now seeking to prop up a center-right coalition with three other parties that have urged getting migration under control. One of them is Rutte’s old group, now led by Dilan Yeşilgöz.
Geert Wilders attends a meeting in the Dutch parliament with party leaders to discuss the formation of a coalition government, on November 24, 2023 | Carl Court/Getty Images
A former refugee, Yeşilgöz turned migration into one of the main topics of her campaign. She was criticized after the elections for paving the way for Wilders to win — not only by focusing on migration, but also by opening the door to potentially governing with Wilders.
Now, though, coalition talks are stuck, and it could take months to form a new cabinet. If Wilders, who clearly has a mandate from voters, can stitch a coalition together, the political trajectory of the Netherlands — generally known as a pragmatic nation — will shift significantly to the right. A crackdown on migration is as certain as anything can be.
Leo Varadkar, Ireland
Even in Ireland, an economically open country long used to exporting its own people worldwide, an immigration-friendly and pro-business government has been forced by rising anti-foreigner sentiment to introduce new migration deterrence measures that would have been unthinkable even a year ago.
Ireland’s hardening policies reflect both a chronic housing crisis and the growing reluctance of some property owners to keep providing state-funded emergency shelter in the wake of November riots in Dublin triggered by a North African immigrant’s stabbing of young schoolchildren.
A nation already housing more than 100,000 newcomers, mostly from Ukraine, Ireland has stopped guaranteeing housing to new asylum seekers if they are single men, chiefly from Nigeria, Algeria, Afghanistan, Georgia and Somalia, according to the most recent Department of Integration statistics.
Ireland has stopped guaranteeing housing to new asylum seekers if they are single men, chiefly from Nigeria, Algeria, Afghanistan, Georgia and Somalia | Jorge Guerrero/AFP via Getty Images
Even newly arrived families face an increasing risk of being kept in military-style tents despite winter temperatures.
Ukrainians, who since Russia’s 2022 invasion of their country have received much stronger welfare support than other refugees, will see that welcome mat partially retracted in draft legislation approved this week by the three-party coalition government of Prime Minister Leo Varadkar.
Once enacted by parliament next month, the law will limit new Ukrainian arrivals to three months of state-paid housing, while welfare payments – currently among the most generous in Europe for people fleeing Russia’s war – will be slashed for all those in state-paid housing.
Justin Trudeau, Canada
A pessimistic public mood dragged down by cost-of-living woes has made immigration a multidimensional challenge for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
A housing crunch felt across the country has cooled support for immigration, with people looking for scapegoats for affordability pains. The situation has fueled antipathy for Trudeau and his re-election campaign.
Trudeau has treated immigration as a multipurpose solution for Canada’s aging population and slowing economy. And while today’s record-high population growth reflects well on Canada’s reputation as a desirable place to relocate, political challenges linked to migration have arisen in unpredictable ways for Trudeau’s Liberals.
Political challenges linked to migration have arisen in unpredictable ways for Trudeau’s Liberals | Andrej Ivanov/AFP
Since Trudeau came to power eight years ago, at least 1.3 million people have immigrated to Canada, mostly from India, the Philippines, China and Syria. Handling diaspora politics — and foreign interference — has become more consequential, as seen by Trudeau’s clash with India and Canada’s recent break with Israel.
Canada will double its 40 million population in 25 years if the current growth rate holds, enlarging the political challenges of leading what Trudeau calls the world’s “first postnational state”.
Pedro Sánchez, Spain
Spain’s autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla, in Northern Africa, are favored by migrants seeking to enter Europe from the south: Once they make it across the land border, the Continent can easily be accessed by ferry.
Transit via the land border that separates the European territory from Morocco is normally kept in check with security measures like high, razor-topped fences, with border control officers from both countries working together to keep undocumented migrants out.
Spain’s autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla, in Northern Africa, are favored by migrants seeking to enter Europe | Pierre-Philippe Marcou/AFP
But in recent years authorities in Morocco have expressed displeasure with their Spanish counterparts by standing down their officers and allowing hundreds of migrants to pass, overwhelming border stations and forcing Spanish officers to repel the migrants, with scores dying in the process.
The headaches caused by these incidents are believed to be a major factor in Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s decision to change the Spanish government’s position on the disputed Western Sahara territory and express support for Rabat’s plan to formalize its nearly 50-year occupation of the area.
The pivot angered Sánchez’s leftist allies and worsened Spain’s relationship with Algeria, a long-standing champion of Western Saharan independence. But the measures have stopped the flow of migrants — for now.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Greece
Greece has been at the forefront of Europe’s migration crisis since 2015, when hundreds of thousands of people entered Europe via the Aegean islands. Migration and border security have been key issues in the country’s political debate.
Human rights organizations, as well as the European Parliament and the European Commission, have accused the Greek conservative government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis of illegal “pushbacks” of migrants who have made it to Greek territory — and of deporting migrants without due process. Greece’s government denies those accusations, arguing that independent investigations haven’t found any proof.
Mitsotakis insists that Greece follows a “tough but fair” policy, but the numerous in-depth investigations belie the moderate profile the conservative leader wants to maintain.
In June, a migrant boat sank in what some called “the worst tragedy ever” in the Mediterranean Sea. Hundreds lost their lives, refocusing Europe’s attention on the issue. Official investigations have yet to discover whether failures by Greek authorities contributed to the shipwreck, according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
In the meantime, Greece is in desperate need of thousands of workers to buttress the country’s understaffed agriculture, tourism and construction sectors. Despite pledges by the migration and agriculture ministers of imminent legislation bringing migrants to tackle the labor shortage, the government was forced to retreat amid pressure from within its own ranks.
Nikos Christodoulides, Cyprus
Cyprus is braced for an increase in migrant arrivals on its shores amid renewed conflict in the Middle East. Earlier in December, Greece sent humanitarian aid to the island to deal with an anticipated increase in flows.
Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides has called for extra EU funding for migration management, and is contending with a surge in violence against migrants in Cyprus. Analysts blame xenophobia, which has become mainstream in Cypriot politics and media, as well as state mismanagement of migration flows. Last year the country recorded the EU’s highest proportion of first-time asylum seekers relative to its population.
Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides has called for extra EU funding for migration management | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
Legal and staffing challenges have delayed efforts to create a deputy ministry for migration, deemed an important step in helping Cyprus to deal with the surge in arrivals.
The island’s geography — it’s close to both Lebanon and Turkey — makes it a prime target for migrants wanting to enter EU territory from the Middle East. Its complex history as a divided country also makes it harder to regulate migrant inflows.
[ad_2]
Tim Ross, Annabelle Dickson, Clea Caulcutt, Myah Ward, Matthew Karnitschnig, Hannah Roberts, Pieter Haeck, Shawn Pogatchnik, Zi-Ann Lum, Aitor Hernández-Morales and Nektaria Stamouli
LONDON — As David Cameron heads to Washington this week for his first big speech back on the world stage, his bête noire Boris Johnson will be sat in a dingy room in west London.
Johnson is to give two days of televised testimony before Britain’s COVID-19 inquiry, answering a barrage of questions under oath about decisions he took while prime minister in 2020 and 2021 which — many believe — cost thousands of people their lives.
As Johnson battles to salvage his battered reputation, Cameron will be strutting through America in a ministerial motorcade, glad-handing Washington’s power players and preparing to address the Aspen Security Forum as U.K. foreign secretary.
It’s a stark symbol of just how quickly the political sands can shift.
Cameron had long been written out of the British political scene, famously retreating to a hut in his garden to write his memoirs after calling — and losing — the divisive Brexit referendum in 2016. Johnson — an old acquaintance from his school days — had fought on the opposite side, and his star rose rapidly after the referendum victory. As Cameron licked his wounds, Johnson became foreign secretary in 2016 and then prime minister — with the landslide majority Cameron also craved — three years later.
But with Johnson now long gone and Cameron handed a dramatic ministerial comeback — along with a seat in the House of Lords — in Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Cabinet reshuffle last month, the two men’s fate has come full circle.
And former colleagues say Cameron is making no secret of his delight at the turn of events, frequently texting associates to say how much he is enjoying the new gig.
Despite now having the run of the palatial Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office — known as the grandest building on Whitehall — Cameron has also been awarded two large private rooms in the House of Lords, displacing Conservative colleagues in the process.
Some friends believe he’s having more fun than when he was actually running the country.
“He has got the bits of the job he enjoyed, he has shed the bits he didn’t. It is the perfect semi-retirement job for him,” a former No. 10 adviser who worked for Cameron said. (The adviser was granted anonymity, like others in this article, to speak candidly about private interactions with the foreign secretary)
“All prime ministers like being on the world stage. It allows them to grapple with big issues,” a second former No. 10 adviser who worked closely with Cameron said.
Cameron’s closest political ally, his ex-Chancellor George Osborne, says his friend’s return will have fulfilled the “strong element of public service” in the ex-prime minister, which he claimed has “always been part of his DNA.”
Cameron’s closest political ally, his ex-Chancellor George Osborne (left), says his friend’s return will have fulfilled the “strong element of public service” in the ex-PM | Pool photo by Petar Kujundzic via Getty Images
“It’s like the sound of the trumpet. Back on … the political playing field, and serving your country. He’s doing it because above all he thinks he can make a difference,” Osborne said on a recent podcast.
Others are less impressed.
One Whitehall official, while acknowledging the diplomatic advantages of having a former PM in post, described Cameron’s appointment as “failing upward, writ large.”
Cameron’s peerage means MPs cannot quiz him in the House of Commons like other ministers, another fact which rankles with opponents.
“Once again Cameron is jetsetting around the globe with seemingly no accountability to the British public,” Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson Layla Moran said.
“We have very little idea whom this unelected foreign secretary is meeting and what he is saying. Maybe if he spent as much time — or indeed any time at all — making himself available for scrutiny from MPs, we would understand exactly what his foreign policy priorities are.”
Back onthe world stage
On his first visit to the U.S. since becoming foreign secretary on Wednesday, Cameron will meet key members of the Biden administration, including U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, as well as Republican and Democratic Congressional figures in an effort to shore up support for Ukraine.
Cameron’s appointment has certainly made diplomats in foreign capitals sit up and take notice, if only because his is a familiar name in the hard-to-follow soap opera of British politics.
Even in the U.S., his appointment triggered some excitement. As one U.K. official put it, “Americans have a sort of respect for former office-bearers in a way that Brits don’t.”
An EU diplomat said that despite having “gambled” on the Brexit referendum, Cameron is still well thought of in Brussels.
Cameron will certainly feel at home, having relished life on the world stage as prime minister, according to multiple advisers who worked with him at the time.
“You get the idiosyncrasies of different leaders and he enjoyed that. He has a good sense of humor,” the second former adviser quoted above said. The aide recounted how a Nigerian president had once left a soap opera playing on TV throughout his meeting with the British prime minister. “[Cameron] came out laughing. He could roll with the weird and wonderful.”
With Johnson now long gone and Cameron handed a dramatic ministerial comeback in Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Cabinet reshuffle last month, the two men’s fate has come full circle | Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
Predictably, Cameron has slipped back easily into government — perhaps a little too easily, according to the Whitehall official quoted above who said he had to be reminded he needed clearance before texting friendly hellos to former acquaintances from foreign powers.
The same person said he was demanding fast, detailed briefings at a rate more associated with No. 10, and has sometimes sent papers back asking for a more creative approach. They pointed out his only previous job in government had been as prime minister, which influences his way of working.
Green with envy
The notoriously competitive Cameron also won’t be displeased by the reaction to his appointment by his political peers.
Arch-rival and former school frenemy Johnson, who was ousted from office in 2022 over his handling of various personal scandals, couldn’t help but mock Cameron’s return, describing it as “great news for retreads everywhere.”
Osborne, Cameron’s closest political friend, admitted to being “a little bit jealous, but in a good way,” after he returned.
“There’s a little bit of me that goes ‘I’d fancy being foreign secretary,’” Osborne admitted, before insisting: “But I’m very happy with what I’m doing with the rest of my life, and I think it probably keeps me sane.”
Even the man who appointed Cameron — Sunak — may start to envy Cameron’s ability to detach from the day-to-day management of a fractious Conservative Party, something he endured throughout his own premiership from 2010-2016.
Two government officials said Cameron was essentially “prime minister of foreign affairs,” leaving Sunak to fix his attention on a raft of nightmarish domestic problems in the run-up to the next election, which he is expected to lose.
“[Cameron] can really dedicate himself in a way he never could as PM, because you’re on the plane back and you’ve got to deal with Mark Pritchard and circus tent animals, or whatever else there is when you are prime minister,” a third former adviser said, referencing a furor over a Tory backbench rebellion on banning circus animals.
Adrenaline rush
Life will certainly be different from the past seven years. Shortly after his appointment last month, Cameron told peers the Chippy Larder food project — where he volunteered for two years during his political retirement — would have to manage without him for a while.
“There’s an element of it being quite hard to replay that adrenaline rush [of being PM], the pace of what you do,” the second former adviser quoted above said, noting Cameron had quit before he was 50 and had been “at the peak of his abilities.”
“It’s a shot of redemption,” the third former adviser added. “He’s got another chance at it — and this one probably isn’t going to end in his failure.”
THE HAGUE — One line in Geert Wilders’ inflammatory pitch to Dutch voters will haunt Brussels more than any other: a referendum on leaving the EU.
Seven years after the British voted for Brexit, a so-called Nexit ballot was a core plank of the far-right leader’s ultimately successful offer in the Netherlands.
And while Wilders softened his anti-Islam rhetoric in recent weeks, there are no signs he wants to water down his Euroskepticism after his shock election victory.
Even if Dutch voters are not persuaded to follow the Brits out of the EU — polling suggests it’s unlikely — there’s every indication that a Wilders-led government in The Hague will still be a nightmare for Brussels.
A seat for Wilders around the EU summit table would transform the dynamic, alongside other far-right and nationalist leaders already in post. Suddenly, policies ranging from climate action, to EU reform and weapons for Ukraine will be up for debate, and even reversal.
Since the exit polls were announced, potential center-right partners have not ruled out forming a coalition with Wilders, who emerged as the clear winner. That’s despite the fact that for the past 10 years, he’s been kept out by centrists.
For his part, the 60-year-old veteran appears to be dead serious about taking power himself this time.
Ever since Mark Rutte’s replacement as VVD leader, Dilan Yeşilgöz, indicated early in the campaign that she could potentially enter coalition talks with Wilders, the far-right leader has worked hard to look more reasonable. He diluted some of his most strident positions, particularly on Islam — such as banning mosques — saying there are bigger priorities to fix.
On Wednesday night, with the results coming in, Wilders was more explicit: “I understand very well that parties do not want to be in a government with a party that wants unconstitutional measures,” he said. “We are not going to talk about mosques, Qurans and Islamic schools.”
Even if Wilders is willing to drop his demand for an EU referendum in exchange for power, his victory will still send a shudder through the EU institutions.
And if centrist parties club together to keep Wilders out — again — there may be a price to pay with angry Dutch voters later on.
Brexit cheerleader Nigel Farage showed in the U.K. that you don’t need to be in power to be powerfully influential.
Winds of change
Migration was a dominant issue in the Dutch election. For EU politicians, it remains a pressing concern. As migrant numbers continue to rise, so too has support for far-right parties in many countries in Europe. In Italy last year, Giorgia Meloni won power for her Brothers of Italy. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally remains a potent force, in second place in the polls. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany has also surged to second place in recent months.
In his victory speech, Wilders vowed to tackle what he called the “asylum tsunami” hitting the Netherlands.
“The main reasons voters have supported Wilders in these elections is his anti-immigration agenda, followed by his stances on the cost of living crisis and his health care position,” said Sarah de Lange, politics professor at the University of Amsterdam. Mainstream parties “legitimized Wilders” by making immigration a key issue, she said. “Voters might have thought that if that is the issue at stake, why not vote for the original rather than the copy?”
For the left, the bright spot in the Netherlands was a strong showing for a well-organized alliance between Labor and the Greens. Frans Timmermans, the former European Commission vice president, galvanized support behind him. But even that joint ticket could not get close to beating Wilders’ tally.
Next June, the 27 countries of the EU hold an election for the European Parliament.
On the same day voters choose their MEPs, Belgium is holding a general election. Far-right Flemish independence leader Tom Van Grieken, who is also eyeing up a major breakthrough, offered his congratulations to Wilders: “Parties like ours are on their way in the whole of Europe,” he said.
Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was celebrating, too: “The winds of change are here!”
Pieter Haeck reported from Amsterdam and Tim Ross reported from London.
[ad_2]
Tim Ross, Pieter Haeck, Eline Schaart and Jakob Hanke Vela
LONDON — Rishi Sunak appointed David Cameron as Britain’s new foreign secretary — in a shock comeback for the former prime minister.
Cameron, who resigned as PM in 2016 and later quit as a member of parliament after losing the Brexit referendum, will become a life peer in the House of Lords in order to take on the government role.
The move comes as Sunak carries out a major reshuffle of his government ranks, in a bid to arrest his Conservative Party’s large deficit in opinion polling.
He kicked off the reshuffle Monday by firing Home Secretary Suella Braverman, a key figure on the party’s right. James Cleverly, previously foreign sec, takes over from Braverman at the interior ministry.
Cameron’s return on Monday to one of the highest positions in government sent shockwaves through Westminster and the Conservative Party.
It marks the first post-war example of a former prime minister serving in a successor’s Cabinet since the 1970s, when Conservative Alec Douglas-Home was named foreign secretary in Ted Heath’s government.
Although both are seen as Tory centrists, Sunak and Cameron campaigned on opposite sides of the 2016 Brexit referendum. Cameron — who led a coalition government in 2010 and pulled off a dramatic election victory for the Tories in 2015 — has recently been critical of the prime minister over his decision to axe key parts of the HS2 rail link.
The ex-PM’s reputation took a hit amid a lobbying scandal in 2021. His record on foreign policy is controversial among some Conservatives. As prime minister he heralded a so-called “Golden Era” in U.K. relations with China, and hosted President Xi Jinping for a state visit.
Cameron: I want to help Sunak deliver
In a statement following his appointment, Cameron said the U.K. would “stand by our allies, strengthen our partnerships and make sure our voice is heard.”
And he added: “Though I may have disagreed with some individual decisions, it is clear to me that Rishi Sunak is a strong and capable prime minister, who is showing exemplary leadership at a difficult time.
“I want to help him to deliver the security and prosperity our country needs and be part of the strongest possible team that serves the United Kingdom and that can be presented to the country when the general election is held.”
But Pat McFadden of the opposition Labour Party used the new hire to take a dig at Sunak, who has recently attempted to pitch himself against successive governments of all stripes.
“A few weeks ago, Rishi Sunak said David Cameron was part of a failed status quo, now he’s bringing him back as his life raft,” McFadden quipped.
LONDON — It was the gleaming smiles and mutual backslapping of two 40-something banker bros which signalled a new era of U.K.-EU relations.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and French President Emmanuel Macron looked like natural bedfellows as they riffed off one another at a friendly Paris press conference in March, announcing a sizeable £478 million package to deter migrant crossings through the English Channel.
The contrast with the petty name-calling of the Boris Johnson and Liz Truss eras was clear to see.
Sunak’s warm and productive summit with Europe’s most high-profile leader confirmed a more collaborative relationship with the EU and its national capitals after the turmoil of the Brexit era. Less than two weeks earlier, the British PM’s landmark Windsor Framework agreement with Brussels had finally resolved post-Brexit trading issues in Northern Ireland.
“My hope is that [theagreement] opens up other areas of constructive engagement and dialogue and cooperation with the EU,” Sunak told POLITICO en route to the Paris summit.
Six months on, his words have been borne out.
In addition to the Windsor Framework and English Channel agreements, Britain has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Brussels on regulatory cooperation in financial services, and this month rejoined the EU’s massive €96 billion Horizon and Copernicus science research programs — a major result for the U.K.’s research and university sectors after two years of uncertainty.
Next on the agenda is a cooperation deal between the British government and the EU’s border protection agency Frontex — another move that brings Britain closer to the EU in a small but meaningful way.
The deal, confirmed by the Home Secretary Suella Braverman on Tuesday, is expected to be similar to other deals Frontex has with non-EU countries, like Albania, which allow the sharing of data on migration flows.
“We have seen concrete steps created by a new climate of good faith,” said a London-based European diplomat, granted anonymity — like others in this article — to speak candidly about diplomatic relations.
“We missed that before, and so that’s the Sunak effect. I wouldn’t say he’s done an amazing job, but he’s changed the state of mind — and therefore he has changed everything.”
A new hope
In addition to a renewed focus on relations with fellow leaders, Sunak has impressed EU diplomats with his willingness to face down the vocal Brexiteer wing of his own party, which has long seemed — to European eyes — to hold outsized influence over successive Tory prime ministers.
Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak proclaimed a “new chapter” in post-Brexit relations with the European Union after securing a breakthrough deal to regulate trade in Northern Ireland | Pool photo by Dan Kitwood/AFP via Getty Images
Earlier this year Sunak enraged Tory right-wingers by abandoning a controversial pledge to scrap or rewrite thousands of EU-era regulatory laws which remain on the British statute book by the end of this year, to the delight of EU capitals.
“The improving relationship is built on the fact there’s now a willingness to find solutions and engage in a way that wasn’t there in the previous administrations,” a second London-based European diplomat said.
Negotiations continue between Sunak’s government and Brussels over other outstanding areas of dispute — chief among them tough new tariffs due to be imposed in January on electric vehicles (EVs) being shipped in and out of the U.K. which do not conform to strict sourcing requirements for electric batteries.
On Wednesday the U.K.-EU Trade Specialised Committee will meet to discuss the issue, with British ministers increasingly hopeful Brussels will agree to scrap the end-of-year deadline after heavy lobbying from German automakers and its own European Commissioner for trade, Valdis Dombrovskis.
Catherine Barnard, a European law professor at Cambridge University, said overall Sunak had overseen a “much more positive relationship” with Europe, albeit one conducted on a “pay-as-you-go basis.”
“This is looking much more positive and it’s putting some meaning on dealing with our European neighbors as friends, rather than as foes,” she said.
“But equally, we’re not talking about a comprehensive and thorough renegotiation — quite the contrary.”
No. 10 Downing Street agrees the shift is less profound than some media observers — or grumbling Tory MPs — would like to think.
A No. 10 aide said Sunak sees his diplomatic efforts as “normal government,” noting that “we’ve just forgotten what it looks like” after the turmoil of the post-Brexit era.
“I know it’s following Brexit and all that nonsense we’ve seen over the last few years, and it’s nice to see any small win or small argument to bridge that divide, but this is just normal government relations,” the aide said.
But his opponent, U.K. Labour leader Keir Starmer, has made clear he too wants closer cooperation with Europe should he seize power.
A senior moderate Tory MP said that despite the attacks on Starmer, Sunak is “not overly ideological when it comes to the EU” | Kiran Ridley/Getty Images
Starmer said this month a future Labour government would use the upcoming review of the post-Brexit trade deal, expected in 2025 or 2026, as a chance to reduce border checks through the signing of a veterinary agreement and to increase U.K.-EU mobility for some sectors of the economy.
And he told a conference in Montreal last weekend that that “we don’t want to diverge from the EU” in areas such as working conditions or environmental standards.
These comments were seized upon by Tory ministers as evidence that Starmer would bring the U.K. even further into the EU’s orbit than he has publicly admitted — something the Labour leader denies. Tory campaigners hope to use such comments in campaign attacks painting Starmer as an anti-Brexit europhile.
But some observers suggest such political attacks are ironic, given Sunak’s own direction of travel. Barnard, quoted above, says that “what Keir Starmer was saying in Canada last week is pretty much a description of where we’re at at the moment.”
A senior moderate Tory MP said that despite the attacks on Starmer, Sunak is “not overly ideological when it comes to the EU.”
“There’s always been a belief in Brussels that we would inevitably come crawling back to them, and we’re seeing that a bit now,” they said.
Nevertheless, it is unclear how much closer Britain and the EU can get without a fundamental renegotiation of the terms of Brexit — something all sides insist is off the table.
One area for agreement is the need for enhanced security and defence links, with next year’s European Political Community Summit in Britain providing a potential opportunity for further announcements.
Some in Westminster speculate that this could come in the form of Britain joining individual projects of the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation — a body which coordinates the bloc’s security and defence policy. The European Council invited Britain to join its “military mobility project” alongside Canada, Norway and the U.S. in November 2022.
Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think tank , said he’s “not convinced” of the potential benefits for Britain, considering the U.K.’s existing position in NATO and other organizations.
He believes the British government will run out of road in finding mutually beneficial areas of cooperation with Brussels.
“The EU is relatively happy with the status quo,” Menon said. “It’s only in the U.K. where people say we need to move closer … There are so many bigger fish to fry for the EU.”
PARIS — Britain’s King Charles III urged France and the U.K. to revitalize ties Wednesday, as both countries seek to improve relations after several acrimonious years marked by Brexit negotiations.
On the first day of a three-day state visit to France, the king said it was “incumbent upon us all to reinvigorate our friendship to ensure it is fit for the challenge of this, the 21st century.” Speaking at a banquet dinner hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron at the Palace of Versailles, the king said he looked forward to a renewal of the Entente Cordiale between France and the U.K, an alliance which marks its 120th anniversary next year.
The British monarch did not mention Brexit directly but hinted at relations between the two countries that had not “always been entirely straightforward.”
The banquet dinner was held in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, a venue long associated in France with privilege, absolute monarchy and the French Revolution. The banquet gathered together stars, business leaders and politicians from both sides of the Channel, including rock star Mick Jagger, former football manager Arsène Wenger and the world’s second richest man, Bernard Arnault.
During his toast, Macron said France and the U.K. would meet the future challenges of the modern world together despite the tensions created by Brexit.
“Despite Brexit … I’m sure, your majesty, that we will continue to write part of the future of our continent together,” the French president said.
LONDON — A year is a long time in politics — but the reverberations of the surreal fall of 2022 are still being felt across the U.K.
Wednesday marks the first anniversary of Liz Truss’ ill-fated appointment as prime minister — a year on from that rainy day in September when she stood outside No. 10 Downing Street and vowed to “transform Britain” with free market shock therapy.
Truss’ £45 billion package of unfunded tax cuts — with the promise of more to come — instead sunk the pound, sent interest rates soaring, caused chaos on the bond markets and forced the Bank of England to prop up failing pension funds.
Humiliated, Truss had little choice but to junk her entire economic program and less than four weeks later she was gone — the U.K.’s shortest-ever serving prime minister, famously outlasted by a supermarket lettuce.
The legacy of the period still is fiercely debated among Britain’s left and right-wing commentariat. In Westminster, some Tory factions still push for Truss’ successor Rishi Sunak to embrace her brand of free market economics.
But the period sticks in the memory of most ordinary Brits as one of high farce and incompetence and significantly, it’s a view shared in boardrooms across London and beyond.
“It was such a short, sharp, weird time. It had such a febrile sense of impending doom,” said one partner at a Big Four accounting firm who was granted anonymity — like other figures quoted below — to speak candidly about Truss for this article.
The money men
Senior employees of major financial and professional services firms say Truss’ brief period in office still taints Britain’s reputation around the globe.
Annual Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into the U.K., already down significantly since the 2016 Brexit referendum, fell further — behind France — last year, according to an EY survey.
Britain has also been the second-worst performing G7 economy post-COVID, despite an upgrade in GDP growth figures by the Office for National Statistics last week.
The U.K.’s stuttering economic growth since the pandemic always was going to put a dent into Britain’s prospects for international investment. Experts give a myriad of reasons for Britain’s decreasing international competitiveness.
But a director at one U.S. investment bank said: “The No. 1 issue I hear from clients is that the U.K. is still un-investable because of what happened last year in Westminster, particularly with what happened during Liz Truss’ time in office.”
Senior employees of major financial and professional services firms say Truss’ brief period in office still taints Britain’s reputation around the globe | Leon Neal/Getty Images
A managing director at another investment bank agreed. “This stuff matters for clients who are looking at the U.K., seeing three different prime ministers and four different chancellors in a matter of a few months, and saying ‘why on earth would we choose that place to build our new factory?’ The results of that will still be felt today.”
Such views are confirmed in a recent survey by transatlantic lobby group BritishAmericanBusiness and management consulting firm Bain and Co.
The survey found U.S. business confidence in Britain has sunk for the third straight year, with political instability cited as a key factor.
BritishAmericanBusiness’ chief trade and policy officer Emanuel Adam said: “The instability in No. 10 last autumn, coupled with ongoing concerns over Brexit, growth prospects and taxation have led to a drop of confidence in the U.K. for a third year in a row.
“The message from U.S. investors is clear. They are calling for a stable political environment and business friendly policies from the U.K. government.”
But if foreign direct investors have been put off, the pound’s stronger-than-expected performance since Truss left office suggests they may have compensated with other forms of inward flows.
The Big Four partner quoted at the top of the article says Truss’ disastrous premiership was one of several factors making the British economy less competitive on the world stage.
“Trussonomics plus Brexit plus political uncertainty plus a misplaced sense of British exceptionalism are all contributing to making Britain a less attractive place than we ought to be,” they said.
“I’m aware of real-life examples of decisions being made to invest elsewhere, because they couldn’t be confident about the stability of their return on investment.”
Gloom in Westminster
But even more than the U.K. economy, it is Truss’ Conservative Party which is haunted most by the specter of her brief tenure.
Polling from Ipsos shows the British public’s trust in the Conservatives to manage the economy fell off a cliff during Truss’ time as prime minister, and has never recovered.
With an election looming next year, their Labour opponents — now 18 points ahead in the polls — cannot believe their good fortune.
“The two most important things for an opposition are to be able to show people that they can be trusted to protect the economy, and trusted with the defence of the realm,” said one Labour shadow Cabinet minister. “Liz Truss did a lot of the heavy lifting in allowing us to get a hearing on the economy from the public.”
One moderate Tory MP, and Sunak supporter, said “the damage done by the 49 days of Truss could still be the thing that loses us the next general election.”
“At least part of the party’s problem at the moment is that although the economy is starting to improve, no one is going to give us the credit for that because of the seismic events of last year,” they said.
Julian Jessop, an independent economist who acted as an informal adviser to Truss during her leadership campaign, agreed that the public became infuriated once mortgage rates began to surge during last September’s financial meltdown, but said “it is a bit much” to continue to blame the Tories’ poor polling on the former PM.
“If that were the big problem, then confidence should have recovered,” he said. “We have a new prime minister in place.”
A different view
Indeed some economists — and Truss defenders — see the past 12 months in a very different light.
Even more than the U.K. economy, it is Truss’ Conservative Party which is haunted most by the specter of her brief tenure | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images
They point to bond yields which recently have hit similar levels to the worst moments of the Truss era, thanks to successive Bank of England rate rises.
Truss’ prediction that inflation would help the U.K. eat through some of its debt pile — used as justification for funding her tax cuts through borrowing — has also been borne out in reality. And tax receipts have come in higher than expected this year, thanks to larger than expected growth and inflationary pressures.
Truss’ former Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng, speaking on a forthcoming episode of POLITICO’s Westminster Insider podcast, insisted that while he and Truss admittedly pushed it “too much, too far,” their overall policy direction was sound.
“I think there’s a big lesson in life,” he said. “It’s all very well thinking you’ve got the right answer, but you’ve also go to have a staged, methodical approach to getting to the answer.”
Russell Napier, author of The Solid Ground investment report, added the unexpectedly strong performance of sterling against the U.S. dollar and other major currencies this year indicates capital inflows into Britain must be stronger than expected.
“Is there something that’s unique and dangerous about the U.K.? No there isn’t,” Napier added. “Our bond yields are at a dangerously high level, but so is the bond yield of Sweden and France, and Canada and South Korea and Australia.
Some of Truss’ closest supporters on the Tory backbenches have now set up pressure groups to fight for the type of low-tax policies advocated in her time in office.
Truss, for her part, is writing a book which aides suggest will be “more manifesto than autobiography.” She is also giving a keynote speech on the economy this month — just five days after the anniversary of her ill-fated “mini-budget.”
But for many Tory MPs still feeling the political repercussions of her tenure and fearing a brutal defeat at next year’s election, a period of silence would be welcome.
“It could be worse,” notes one Tory MP, a minister under Sunak. “It could have been a lot worse if she’d stayed.”
LONDON — Britain has spent years seeking its place in the world after Brexit. Now it seems to have found a role … as a global conference center, where the great powers gather to talk.
Without a seat at the European table in Brussels, and also excluded from power-play summits between the EU and Washington, Britain hopes to wield its own “convening power” as it reboots its foreign policy ambitions.
Indeed almost every time a major global issue has raised its head of late — climate change; war in Ukraine, the rise of AI; the energy crisis — Britain’s answer has been to host another world summit.
Hot on the heels of this summer’s Ukraine Recovery Conference in London, U.K. government officials are now busy prepping for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s “major global summit on AI safety,” due to be held later this year.
That event will be followed next spring by a global energy security conference, timed to mark the second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And all this less than two years after Britain played host to COP26, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Glasgow.
This “summit frenzy”, as one European diplomat laughingly describes it, has not gone unnoticed in foreign capitals. But as more and more powerstry a similar middleman strategy, the U.K. may have a fight on its hands to stand out.
“This is really our bread and butter,” said Alicia Kearns, Conservative chair of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee. “One of our strongest diplomatic offers to the world is our ability to convene people. I think it’s a really important aspect of our diplomacy.”
“UK-hosted forums and conferences deliver real-world results, and position us as a leading voice on a range of important issues,” a U.K. government spokesperson told POLITICO, in response to questions about its summit strategy.
They are a “vital part of the diplomatic toolkit, giving us the opportunity to bring together governments and experts … and yield commitments which translate into real and lasting change for the better.”
Leading or following?
Hosting international conferences is hardly a new venture for the U.K. — but its efforts to act as global broker have been given fresh prominence in the wake of Brexit.
Former Prime Minister David Cameron’s Syria donor conference in early 2016 raised more than $10 billion to help pay for food, medical care and shelter in the war-torn country. Two years earlier, Cameron’s Foreign Secretary William Hague had gathered global ministers — and a Hollywood megastar — in London to combat the use of rape as a weapon of war. A follow-up was held in Westminster last year.
Britain’s big post-Brexit foreign policy reset, known as the “Integrated Review” and published in March 2021, made the national mission explicit. “Shaping the open international order of the future: we will use our convening power and work with partners to reinvigorate the international system,” the plan promised.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak should not confuse a convening role with that of actual leadership | Pool photo by Henry Nicholls/Getty Images
Its author, the academic John Bew, continues to advise Sunak on foreign policy today. And multiple current and former advisers and diplomats agree that playing the role of eager host makes sense for the U.K. these days.
“People can pretty much rely that if they come to London for an international summit it will be well-organized,” Peter Ricketts, a former head of the U.K. diplomatic service, said. He cited Britain’s strong diplomatic reputation for drafting sound communiqués and brokering compromises.
But Ricketts noted Britain should not confuse a convening role with that of actual leadership. “The U.K. is not big enough to provide global leadership on any of these huge issues,” he said, referencing energy, climate change and artificial intelligence.
“Inevitably the Americans are going to be in the lead on setting governance for AI norms and so on,” he added.” The other players will be the Chinese, for their huge market power, and in third place — perhaps a long way behind — is the EU.”
COP out
Hosting a major global conference is one thing — making it count is another matter.
A former adviser to the U.K.’s foreign office, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said the hosting of conferences “in and of themselves doesn’t hold massive value.” More critical is the follow-up work to ensure they “catalyze change or investment and serve a purpose.”
“It’s how you leverage it that matters, and its legacy,” the ex-adviser cautioned. “They take an awful lot of work, and done badly are just talking shops.”
Some believe there are lessons for the U.K. to learn from the aftermath of COP26, when the eyes of the world were on Glasgow for two weeks of high-stakes climate summitry.
Nick Mabey, who advised the U.K. government on COP26 and founded the E3G climate think tank, said the British played a “good game” in their organization of the event — but then appeared to drop “its own ball in the follow-up” as initiatives got delayed while the Conservative Party burned through three prime ministers.
“That did damage the U.K.’s reputation quite strongly among core allies, and other countries. It was seen not to have followed up as strongly across all of the things that it launched at COP26,” he said.
Mabey cited the forest declaration, an agreement which aims to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030, as an example of an initiative he thinks has fallen in priority.
But the U.K. government spokesperson quoted above insisted its “track record” on delivery “speaks for itself.”
“In the last two years alone, 190 countries agreed to phase down coal power at COP26, $60 billion was raised at the Ukraine Recovery Conference and an international declaration on ending Sexual Violence in Conflict was signed by over 50 countries.”
Unlike summits hosted by bigger powers — or meetings like COP that are part of an established United Nations process — Britain will, Mabey warned, really need to “hustle” to get a turnout at its own events.
“The international calendar is going to become a lot more crowded, as other countries will be doing the ‘middle power strategy’ to get their place in the sun too, whether that is the South Africas or Brazils,” he said.
Testing the waters
The European diplomat quoted at the top of the story, granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record, agreed there is now a “little bit of summit competition” among the larger capitals.
Many leaders, he said, see the benefits of playing host: they find it easier to bag coveted bilateral meetings with important counterparts on the sidelines — especially useful for U.K. prime ministers who no longer have bi-monthly meetings with the EU27 in the calendar.
Italy has spied its own conference opportunity through the Rome Med — an annual gathering of Mediterranean leaders which began in 2015. In June, French President Emmanuel Macron convened a global finance conference in an effort to unlock trillions of dollars for the fight against climate change.
But not everyone wants to be the first mover, the diplomat added, citing risks for the U.K. in taking ownership of hot-button issues like AI.
“You have capitals that don’t necessarily want to be the first to host a summit on a specific topic,” he said. “Maybe they want to host the second or the third, or further down the line, so that they can test the waters and see if that thing flies or it doesn’t fly.”
He added: “If a summit is a failure, it doesn’t look very good for the host.”
For Britain, still seeking its new place in the world three-and-a-half years after Brexit, it seems to be a risk worth taking.
LONDON — NatWest Group CEO Alison Rose resigned after a media storm over the termination of Brexit figurehead Nigel Farage’s bank account by sister lender Coutts.
Rose admitted Tuesday to having discussed the details of Farage’s account with a BBC reporter and having thus been the source of a controversial story for which the national broadcaster has since issued an apology.
related investing news
Initially, the board reiterated its support for her to stay on as CEO, but at 2 a.m. Wednesday the bank announced her immediate departure by mutual consent.
In a statement, Rose said she remained “immensely proud of the progress the bank has made in supporting people, families and business across the U.K., and building the foundations for sustainable growth.”
The controversy
NatWest is 39% owned by the British taxpayer following the 2008 crisis, heightening the public interest in the bizarre saga.
“Despite a stellar performance as the first woman to take the helm of a U.K. bank, her mistake in discussing sensitive customer details with a journalist broke a sacred trust with the British public and her decision to step down was the only viable path,” said Danni Hewson, head of financial analysis at AJ Bell.
“She will be a loss, having worked her way up the ranks and championed diversity and inclusion in the sector with a huge focus on getting more women in financial services. But NatWest is no ordinary bank, it is still almost forty percent owned by the U.K. taxpayer, and the political and regulatory ramifications of this episode are likely to ripple out for months to come.”
Farage was informed last month that Coutts — a high-end private bank and wealth manager requiring clients to hold a minimum of £1 million ($1.29 million) in investments or borrowing, or £3 million in savings — planned to cut ties with him.
Alison Rose, NatWest chief executive, (right) departs 10 Downing Street in London, after meeting with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt.
James Manning | PA Images | Getty Images
He subsequently filed a subject access request (SAR) to obtain a dossier the bank held on him which he then published, claiming it showed the bank account was being terminated due to his political views.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and several members of his Conservative government issued statements condemning the bank and characterizing the termination of Farage’s account as an affront to free speech. Farage was offered an alternative account at regular main street bank NatWest, but declined.
His critics maintain that although frequent references are made to Farage’s political profile and controversial views, the reasons outlined for allowing the banking relationship to lapse were primarily commercial, and he was not “de-banked” as he claims.
The dossier
Minutes from the Wealth Reputational Risk Committee at Coutts on November 2022 state that Farage’s mortgage was due to expire in July 2023, at which point “on a commercial basis” it would not look to renew and therefore recommended winding down the banking relationship.
Without the mortgage, the bank indicated that Farage’s account value would fall below its commercial criteria. The committee recommended exiting the relationship in July, but was at the time seeking to retain Farage as a client barring any “flash points” that might pose further “reputational risk.”
Coutts said that upon expiry of Farage’s mortgage repayments, it “did not have the appetite to renew his mortgage or provide banking facilities” and had therefore implemented an “exit plan” that allowed for the bank to terminate Farage’s account earlier in the event of further controversy in the meantime.
“The Committee did not think continuing to bank NF [Nigel Farage] was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation,” the minutes added.
“This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and Purpose.”
An update from March 10 this year noted that Farage’s account had “been below commercial criteria for some time and upon review of Nigel’s past public profile and connections, the perceived risks for the future weighed against the benefit of retention, the decision was taken to exit upon repayment of an existing mortgage.”
Farage’s politically exposed person (PEP) status — conferred by British banks to high-ranking public figures who may be susceptible to bribery — was downgraded to “lower risk” as he is “no longer associated with any political party” since stepping down as Brexit Party leader in 2021.
Part of the client analysis from Coutts contained within the 40 pages of personal data, highlighted an array of news articles alongside Farage’s own media appearances and tweets, determined that the “values” he promotes did not align with the bank’s.
“Particularly given the manner in which he states (and monetises) those views – deliberately using extreme, hatful[sp?] and emotive language (often with a dose of misinformation) – at best he is seen as xenophobic and pandering to racists, and at worst, he is seen as xenophobic and racist,” it said.
“He is considered by many to be a disingenuous grifter and is regularly (almost constantly) the subject of adverse media.”
LONDON – June 16, 2016: Then-UK Independence Party Leader (UKIP) Nigel Farage poses during the launch of a national poster campaign urging voters to vote to leave the EU ahead of the EU referendum.
DANIEL LEAL/AFP via Getty Images
Farage is a long-time ally of former U.S. President Donald Trump, vocal supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and prominent figure in the British hard right, having previously led the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) and the Brexit Party.
The documents note long lists of controversial statements and activities, including his filming of migrants arriving in dinghies via the English channel and reference to migrant boat arrivals as an “invasion,” and his blaming of violence in the city of Leicester last year on lawmakers who “promoted multiculturalism.”
Coutts acknowledged that Farage’s commentary “remains within the law regarding hate speech and arguably on the right side of ‘glorifying or promoting harmful behaviour’ (although we should be mindful of the role the ‘illegal immigrant / invasion’ rhetoric plays in contributing to discrimination and in some instances, violence, against migrants).”
The fallout
Farage told Sky News Wednesday that he was “shocked with the vitriol” contained within it, and is calling for the resignation of the entire NatWest Group executive board along with a regulatory overhaul of Britain’s banking sector.
British economist and financial author Frances Coppola, in a blog post Tuesday, agreed that the language in the bank’s risk assessment was “mostly negative and at times possibly defamatory,” and said now-ousted CEO Rose was right to apologize directly to Farage prior to her departure.
However, Coppola argued that the bank was “absolutely right to conduct such an assessment and fully entitled to reach the conclusions that it did,” with the Coutts risk assessment noting that there is an “extra cost attached to managing the accounts of high profile individuals such as NF.”
“Assessing the risk and cost of a customer is a commercial judgement. And reputational risk is hugely important to a bank like Coutts. It is wholly unreasonable to argue that they should not have taken account of – or even evaluated – the risk to them of doing business with a person as controversial as Nigel Farage,” Coppola argued.
“Why should a bank accept the extra cost that you create for them if you don’t borrow from them and don’t keep enough liquid savings with them to support their lending to other people? And why should it keep your account open when you don’t meet its published criteria, given the reputational risk and general aggravation you cause?”
LONDON – June 26, 2020: Private bank and wealth manager Coutts and Company, founded in 1692, and the eighth oldest bank in the world, displays support for Pride month at its offices in London.
Dave Rushen/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority said Wednesday that it had raised concerns with NatWest Group and Coutts about the “allegations relating to account closures and breach of customer confidentiality since these came to light,” and NatWest has launched an independent review of the series of events.
“It is vital that the review is well resourced and those conducting it have access to all the necessary information and people in order to investigate what happened swiftly and fully,” the FCA said in a statement.
“On the basis of the review and any steps taken by other authorities, such as the Financial Ombudsman Service or Information Commissioner, on relevant complaints, we will decide if any further action is necessary.”
Following a Wednesday meeting between Britain’s Economic Secretary to the TreasuryAndrew Griffith and U.K. banking chiefs, the U.K. Treasury reiterated in a statement “the government’s clear position on the importance of legal freedom of expression,” adding it is “wholly unacceptable” to terminate the account of a person for expressing their political views.
“Banks will also be required to spell out why they are terminating a bank account – boosting transparency for customers and aiding their efforts to overturn decisions,” the statement said. “There will be limited exceptions to these requirements, for example to ensure that bank communications aren’t interfering with investigations into criminal activity.”
Whatever the outcome of Farage’s demands for further resignations and regulatory scrutiny, British banking has been thrust into the spotlight and could become yet another political hot potato ahead of a general election due next year.
While the Anglosphere was wracked by a burst of populism in 2016, most European countries proved remarkably resilient. Long-held grievances in the United Kingdom and United States fueled Brexit and took Donald Trump to the White House, but Europe – seeming at times to look aghast across the Channel and Atlantic – appeared largely immune. Brussels had fretted about a “Brexit domino effect.” In reality, the opposite came to be.
In the five years from 2016, French centrism spurted out a new political party led by Emmanuel Macron that quelled the National Front. Angela Merkel’s resignation passed without populist fanfare and delivered a moderate successor. Mario Draghi, the technocrat par excellence, slid seamlessly from the European Central Bank to Italy’s premiership. Spain even went left.
There were outliers: Jaroslaw Kaczynski in Poland and Viktor Orban in Hungary continued to shape their nations in their populist parties’ image. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) surged to third place in the 2017 federal elections. The billionaire tycoon Andrej Babis gained power that same year – but told CNN at the time he was more like the Czech Michael Bloomberg than the Czech Donald Trump. The story of that period was the so-called populist “wave” cresting early, and not sweeping much away. Voters in European nations largely toed the line.
Today, there is not that same cohesion. The far right is on the march across the continent. Italy’s government under Giorgia Meloni is further to the right than at any point since the rule of Mussolini. The AfD recently won a district council election for the first time, with more victories expected to follow. In France, the perma-threat of a Marine Le Pen presidency grows with every protest against Macron’s government, whether over police violence or pension reform. Far-right parties are propping up coalitions in Finland and Sweden. Neo-Nazi groups are growing in Austria.
And in Spain, the center-left coalition looks set to crumble after elections this weekend, paving the way for the far-right Vox party to enter government for the first time as part of a coalition.
Why did Europe largely avoid the sort of populism that took root in the US and UK in 2016? And why are populist parties now steadily marching into the mainstream across the continent?
It is often said that majoritarian electoral systems – as in the US and UK – help to shut extreme views out, while proportional systems – more common in Europe – welcome them in. Proportional systems give a louder legislative voice to parties like the AfD and Vox; winner-takes-all systems keep them quiet.
For example, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), despite winning more than 12% of the vote, secured only one seat in Parliament in the 2015 general election. Thanks to the UK’s first-past-the-post system, while there was significant support for UKIP’s anti-European Union, anti-immigration platform, it was not concentrated enough in any single constituency to deliver many seats. Nigel Farage, the former leader of UKIP, ran in seven elections but never won a seat – a supposed benefit of majoritarian systems.
But it’s not that simple. Afraid of losing voters to UKIP (and other far-right parties), the governing Conservatives ended up adopting many of its positions. First, holding a referendum on Brexit – then pursuing a hardline form of it. Middle-of-the-road Conservatives found they had to make room in their party for more extreme views, or face losing electoral ground to parties that championed them. The system that was meant to shut extremists out of the building ended up welcoming in their ideas. Farage saw many of his policies implemented without having to win a seat.
By contrast, despite often having extremist parties in the building, almost all mainstream European parties would simply refuse to consider them as potential coalition partners, under the principle of the “cordon sanitaire.” For instance, when the then-National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen (father of Marine) unexpectedly defeated the Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin in the 2002 French Presidential election, the Socialists swung their weight behind the center-right candidate Jacques Chirac, delivering him a landslide in the second-round runoff. Despite their ideological differences, the mainstream parties simply refused to cooperate with extremists.
Now, that dynamic has been reversed. Extremist parties that were once excluded from governing coalitions are increasingly propping them up, and the membrane separating the far and center right is proving increasingly permeable.
In Finland, Petteri Orpo – largely seen as dependable and level-headed – only replaced Sanna Marin as Prime Minister in April after allying with the nationalist Finns Party. The party’s Vilhelm Junnila lasted barely a month as finance minister before resigning after allegations he had joked about Nazism at a far-right event in 2019. Swedish Prime Minister Ulif Kristersson relies on the votes of the increasingly Euroskeptic, anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats.
One peculiar feature of this new dynamic is how the far right and center right increasingly use each other’s language. Mainstream center-right parties, fearful of losing votes to more extreme groups, have increasingly begun to adopt their policies. In the Netherlands, Mark Rutte’s run as the second-longest serving leader in Europe ended this month after his new, hardline stance on asylum seekers proved too extreme for his more moderate coalition partners, causing his government to collapse.
Conversely, far-right parties have attempted to sanitize some of their rhetoric, hoping to appear a more credible electoral prospect. After the fatal police shooting of an unarmed teenager, which sparked huge protests in France, Marine Le Pen’s response was markedly restrained.
Philippe Marlier, a professor of French politics at University College London, told CNN that rather than seizing on traditional far-right rallying calls of “riots, ethnic minorities, rebelling against public authorities,” Le Pen’s “low-key” response was tempered “to appeal to a much broader audience than typical far-right voters.” This is part of a “long-term strategy of coming across no longer as a far-right politician, but as someone who eventually – in four years’ time – could be seen as a credible replacement for Macron.”
Italy’s Meloni provided the model for this. When Lega leader Matteo Salvini, a long-term admirer of Vladimir Putin, planned a trip to visit the Russian President in June last year, Meloni took the opposite stance, restating her support for Ukraine and pledging to uphold sanctions against Russia if she was elected, as she then was in September. Using more moderate rhetoric is reaping electoral success for far-right politicians across the continent.
Similarly, Germany’s AfD has begun to speak more seriously about economic policy, echoing traditional conservative values of fiscal prudence. While its flirtation with anti-vax politics may have cost it votes in the 2021 election, it has since enjoyed success in the east of the country, arguing that the government’s commitment to climate policies and supporting Ukraine’s war effort are placing overly burdensome costs on the German taxpayer. These moves suggest far-right parties, while not abandoning their extremist positions, are learning to speak the language of the mainstream to great effect.
All this is to say that the “supply side” of populism warrants as much attention as its “demand side.” It matters not just what voters want to buy, but what – and how – parties are selling. A bottom-up theory of populism suggests that dramatic shifts in public opinion create irresistible “waves” of support that mainstream parties are unable to resist. But, as the American political scientist Larry Bartels points out, there is also a top-down theory: Rather than an unexpected “wave,” there has long been a “reservoir” of populist sentiment in Europe. What matters is how politicians draw on it.
The “demand side” often attributes the rise of populism to economic grievances and a cultural backlash. Financial crises, like that of 2008-2009, or big social shifts, like the European migrant crisis of 2015, are said to provide fertile ground for the seeds of populism to take root. Often the two factors can complement each other: The AfD, for instance, was founded during the Eurozone crisis in opposition to the common currency, but gained more support after adopting anti-Islamic policies following Germany’s welcoming of migrants mostly from the Middle East.
The early 2020s, then, may seem to provide ground more fertile than the previous decade for these sorts of sentiments to grow. The continent has seen the return of inflation and the soaring cost of living; the end of quantitative easing and rising interest rates; increased tax burdens as government balance sheets recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and look to fund net-zero policies and increased defense spending. Recent opinion polls show the issue of immigration is also increasing in salience, as migrants continue to turn up on Europe’s shores.
And yet, recent Eurobarometer polling shows that the public’s perception of the European economy is less bleak than we might expect – and far better than during previous crises. Negative perceptions of Europe’s economy rocketed after the financial crisis, and rose again after the start of the pandemic, but are now net positive. Similarly, trust in the European Union has been on an upward trend since 2015, and trust in national governments has remained broadly constant, but improved since the financial crisis.
And so the recent successes of far-right parties cannot be explained by dramatic shifts in public opinion. Europe has weathered financial and migrant crises before, which did not translate into widespread support for populism.
Instead, what we are seeing is a different sort of populism to the one that wracked the US and UK in 2016: A populism fueled by the collapse of the cordon sanitaire between mainstream conservatives and the far right, and one which may have learned the lessons of its short-lived predecessors.
The defenestration of Boris Johnson and legal travails of Donald Trump perhaps offered the comforting conclusion that populism will inevitably implode: Its policy failures will be too great, the personal foibles of its leaders too unbearable, crass – and potentially criminal.
But, on the continent, there is a newer, smarter brand of populism taking root. Whereas the UK has been content to break international law in pursuit of Brexit and its crackdown on asylum seekers, populist leaders in Europe are taking greater care not to renege on their international commitments. Many are content to wage culture wars at home, while remaining reliable partners abroad.
Orban, then Kaczynski, provided the model for this. Meloni, since, has taken quickly to the craft: Remaining responsible on the continental stage while coldly implementing far-right policies on the domestic one. This weekend, Spain may also set out on this path. After Rutte’s resignation, the Netherlands may too.
A lot depends on the ability of mainstream parties – particularly on the left – to build tents big enough to accommodate their differences, rather than compromising with far-right parties to prop up their coalitions. Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has managed this since 2018, though with dwindling success. His ability – or otherwise – to do so again this weekend may serve as a harbinger of the continent’s future.
Lionel Barber is former editor of the Financial Times (2005-20) and Brussels bureau chief (1992-98)
Nobody does “No” better than the French. Charles De Gaulle said “Non” twice to Britain’s bid to join the European Economic Community; Jacques Chirac said “Non” to the Iraq war; and Emmanuel Macron this week gave a thumbs down to Fiona Scott Morton, the American Yale academic selected for the post of top economist at the EU’s powerful competition directorate in Brussels.
L’affaire Scott Morton may seem trivial in comparison to the (still unresolved) debate over Britain’s place in Europe or armed conflict in the Middle East, but the French veto of the first foreigner to take up the post says an awful lot about the European Union’s current paranoia about America’s influence and power.
As Macron has pushed a vision of Europe that stands up to the U.S., resisting pressure to become “America’s followers,” as he put it in April, such thinking has strengthened in Brussels.
The Scott Morton fiasco brings back memories of a lunch in Brussels exactly 30 years ago when some officials suspected the U.S. was engaged in an Anglo-Saxon plot to sabotage their plans for economic and monetary union. “Remember James Jesus Angleton,” said a stone-faced Belgian bureaucrat, invoking the name of the legendary, obsessive CIA counterintelligence officer at the height of the Cold War.
Professor Scott Morton was selected as the best candidate in open competition. She enjoyed the backing of Margrethe Vestager, the Danish EU competition commissioner often described as the most powerful antitrust regulator in the world. She also had support from Ursula von der Leyen, German president of the European Commission, whose leadership during the Ukraine war and the COVID pandemic has won widespread praise on both sides of the Atlantic.
All this counted for naught. Despite her distinguished academic pedigree, Scott Morton, a former Obama administration antitrust official, worked for Apple, Amazon and Microsoft in competition cases in the U.S. The notion her background somehow disqualified her for the job shows George W. Bush was wrong when he complained the French had no word for “entrepreneur.” Today’s problem is that Paris has no understanding of the term “poacher turned gamekeeper.”
As Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister, tweeted: “Regrettable that narrow-minded opposition in some EU countries has led to this. She was reportedly the most competent candidate, and a knowledge of the U.S. and its antitrust policies should certainly not have been a disadvantage.”
Now, President Macron’s opposition to the appointment has attracted a good deal of support in the Commission, in the European Parliament and among European trade unions. Cristiano Sebastiani, head of Renouveau & Démocratie, a trade union representing EU employees, said senior EU officials should “be invested, believe and contribute towards the European project. The very logic of our statute is that an EU official can never go back to being an ordinary citizen.”
France’s veto of Professor Scott Morton is de facto a veto of Vestager, who was almost untouchable during her first term as competition commissioner between 2014-19. She won kudos for investigating, fining and bringing lawsuits against major multinationals including Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Qualcomm, and Gazprom. More controversially, at least in Paris and Berlin, she vetoed the planned merger between Alstom and Siemens, two industrial giants intent on creating a European champion.
Vestager’s second term has been a different story. She has suffered reverses in the courts which overturned punitive fines against Apple and Qualcomm. Then, although she ranks as a vice-president of the Commission, Vestager found herself challenged by a nominal underling in the shape of Thierry Breton, a former top French industrialist put in charge of the EU’s internal market.
Both have battled over the policing of the EU’s Digital Markets Act and over policy on artificial intelligence, a proxy fight for influence overall in Brussels.
Vestager and Breton have battled over the policing of the EU’s Digital Markets Act and over policy on artificial intelligence | Olivier Hoslet/EPA/AFP via Getty Images
Breton favors the so-called AI Pact, an effort to bring forward parts of the EU’s draft Artificial Intelligence Act. This would ban some AI cases, curb “high-risk” applications, and impose checks on how Google, Microsoft and others develop the emerging technology.
By contrast, Vestager favors a voluntary code of conduct focused on generative AI such as ChatGPT. This could be developed at a global level, in partnership with the U.S., rather than waiting for the two years it will take to secure legislative passage of Breton’s AI Pact.
So what’s the solution? If Europe is to have any chance of prevailing, so the argument goes, member states must take a far harder-nosed attitude to competition policy. This leads in turn to the creation of national or pan-European champions at the expense of crackdowns on subsidies and other anti-competitive behavior. In short, the very liberal policies designed to protect the single market’s level playing field and embodied by the fighting Viking.
For those who occasionally wonder how power has shifted inside the EU since Brexit took the U.K. out of the equation, it is proof indeed that “liberal Europe” is on a losing streak.
LONDON — “Britain Trump” may have a long wait on his hands if he’s going to stage the kind of comeback dreamed of by the former American president.
Boris Johnson’s exit did nothing to discourage comparisons with its blasts at the “kangaroo court” of lawmakers whose verdict sealed his fate, condemning the committee which judged him to have lied to parliament as a “witch hunt” seeking “revenge for Brexit.”
But while Monday’s debate in the House of Commons on the committee’s findings could have presented a crunch moment, with MPs forced to decide whether or not they would condemn or back their former leader, it has instead been deflated as Johnson told his loyal supporters Friday not to bother opposing the verdict. Johnson himself, the Sunday Times reported, will spend the day celebrating his 59th birthday far away in Oxfordshire.
While Donald Trump pursues the narrative of martyrdom at every available opportunity, for now at least, Johnson is ducking tests of his popularity and biding his time.
Unfortunately for Johnson, polls suggest he’s not that popular.
James Johnson, director of JL Partners which carries out polling on both sides of the Atlantic, described the respective standing of the two leaders as “very different — there’s 40 percent that backs Trump regardless. By comparison, Johnson wins the support of only about 15 to 18 percent of the population.”
Perhaps more crucially, the pollster added: “Trump has almost become a form of identity for many Republicans. If you back Trump, then you’re standing up to the liberals, you’re standing up to what’s going wrong in society. I don’t think Boris takes on anything as totemic as that.”
A Tory MP in a seat where Johnson remains popular commented that he had received only one email about the so-called partygate report, suggesting that while some voters may not care much about his misconduct, neither are they clamoring for him to come back.
Without an outpouring of support amongst voters, few within his own party in Westminster have run to his defense either.
“I’m done with that drama. There’s no way I’m ever going back there,” one Conservative minister said over the weekend, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly.
For others the collective running out of patience is symptomatic of cultural differences across the Atlantic. A U.K. diplomat, previously based in the U.S., said that while Trump is still able to whip up crowds, “I think a bit sooner than in America we get sick of it and just actually want people to shut up.”
Not so Trumpian
Trump’s offhand anointing of Johnson back in 2019 — “they call him Britain Trump” — never rang that true, for all their shared populist tendencies.
Even as he pushed for Brexit, Johnson retained a liberal streak, unable to get as fired up about immigration or spending cuts as many of his colleagues would have liked. His famed rhetoric was rambling and deliberately ridiculous, rather than hectoring.
The route back may look harder for Johnson than it does for Trump, but that doesn’t mean he won’t try | Leon Neal/Getty Images
However, his resignation marked a sharp change in tone as he announced his departure with a savage attack on the committee which had condemned him.
In the immediate aftermath, there were signs of an insurrection as two of his close allies, ex-ministers Nadine Dorries and Nigel Adams, swore to go down with him.
The report’s full publication brought fresh howls of anguish as his supporters tweeted graphics boasting “I’m backing Boris,” while David Campbell Bannerman, chairman of the Conservative Democratic Organisation, warned that Tory MPs would face deselection if they backed what he called a “Stalinist show trial.”
But without Trump’s popularity with voters, it has proved difficult for Johnson to capitalize on a sense of martyrdom in the short term.
Matthew McGregor, a former adviser to the U.K. Labour Party and the U.S. Democrats and now CEO of campaign group 38 Degrees, points out that Trump stole a march by using the primary system to his advantage, but it would be difficult for Johnson to stage any equivalent “takeover” of the Conservative grassroots and equally difficult to run as an outsider.
While Johnson could, in theory, run for election to the House of Commons again, party headquarters would likely need to sign off on his candidature, which seems unlikely at this juncture.
A Conservative MP who served as a minister under Johnson said that insofar as he has a strategy, “it is to say you’ve got to throw absolutely everything at this, and some people will stick with you,” but “the trouble with this is that there are diminishing returns.”
Never say never
The route back may look harder for Johnson than it does for Trump, but that doesn’t mean he won’t try.
The two men share some temperamental qualities, as one former Tory minister who worked closely with Johnson admitted: “They both have a sense that because they have won against the odds their own judgment is infallible.”
“Their shamelessness is a superpower,” said McGregor. “The ability to give zero fucks whatsoever allows them to do things that other politicians can’t do, and that is pretty powerful.”
Guto Harri, who was Johnson’s head of comms, claimed this week in the Mail that Johnson last year told MPs who were urging him to resign with dignity that “dignity is a grossly overrated commodity and that I prefer to fight to the end.”
The Tory party’s torrid love affair with Johnson has been a long one — longer than Trump’s political career so far. Johnson may have the stomach for an even longer game.
Brits woke up to yet more grim news on inflation Tuesday, with new data showing prices in UK stores are rising at a record pace. It’s the latest sign of a seemingly intractable cost-of-living crisis that has Prime Minster Rishi Sunak considering drastic measures, includingprice controls, to keep inflation in check.
The cost of store items, known as shop price inflation, rose 9% through the year to May, a fresh high for an index thatdates back to 2005, according to the British Retail Consortium. Food inflation dipped slightly to 15.4% in May, but that’s still the second-highest rate on record.
Lower energy and commodity costs helped reduce prices of some staples, including butter, milk, fruit and fish. But chocolate and coffee prices are rising as global commodity prices soar, British Retail Consortium CEO Helen Dickinson said.
The slight drop in food prices will give cold comfort to consumers, and piles the pressure on Sunak, who has promised to halve inflation this year as one of his five pledges to voters.
The British public “are still wincing when their total comes up at the checkout… a weekly shop that cost £100 last year is now clocking in at £115,” Laura Suter, head of personal finance at stockbroker AJ Bell wrote in a note.
Poor households are being hit the hardest because they spend more of their disposable income on food. More people are using food banks in the United Kingdom than ever before, eclipsing even the peak of the pandemic.
The Trussell Trust, the UK’s biggest food bank network, handed out close to 3 million emergency food parcels over the 12 months to March 2023 — a 37% increase on the previous year.
Even the Bank of England, tasked with keeping inflation at 2%, has been caught off guard by stubbornly high food prices, which seem to have barely responded to 12 successive interest rate hikes.
Food prices have contributed to keeping inflation “higher than we expected it to be,” Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey told a Treasury committee hearing last week. “We have a lot to learn about operating monetary policy in a world of big shocks,” he admitted.
The United Kingdom’s inflation problem is now so dire that Sunak isconsidering asking retailers to cap the price of essential food items, in a throwback to the 1970s. Back then, governments in the United States and United Kingdom imposed wage and price controls to tame inflation, although the policies weren’t very effective at bringing inflation down and were later dropped.
Economists say that capping prices encourages companies to produce less of a product, while making it more attractive to consumers. Supply goes down, and demand goes up, with shortages being the inevitable result.
Price controls distort markets and should only be used “in extreme circumstances,” Neal Shearing, group chief economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a note Tuesday. “The current food price shock does not warrant such an intervention,” he added.
The Sunday Telegraph was first to report the government’s proposal, which was quickly rejected by retailers.
Andrew Opie, director of food and sustainability at the British Retail Consortium said controls would not make a “jot of difference” to high food prices, which are the result of soaring energy, transport and labor costs.
“As commodity prices drop, many of the costs keeping inflation high are now arising from the muddle of new regulation coming from government,” Opie added in a statement. These include tighter rules onrecycling and full border controls on food imports from the European Union, due to be implemented by the end of this year.
According to a government spokesperson, any price caps would not be mandatory. “Any scheme to help bring down food prices for consumers would be voluntary and at retailers’ discretion,” the spokesperson said in a statement shared with CNN.
Sunak and Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt “have been meeting with the food sector to see what more can be done,” the spokesperson added.
For Sunak, the pressure is on — particularly ahead of a general election widely expected to be held next year. Inflation was hovering above 10% when he made the promise to halve it in January. It dropped back to 8.7% in April, still well above his target. The Bank of England expects it to fall to “around 5%” by the end of this year, leaving little margin for error.
According to Opie of the British Retail Consortium, the government should focus on “cutting red tape” rather than “recreating 1970s-style price controls.”
At the top of the list of burdensome regulations are those introduced as a result of the country’s exit from the European Union, which is its main source of food imports.
Brexit is responsible for about a third of UK food price inflation since 2019, according to researchers at the London School of Economics.
New regulatory checks and other border controls added nearly £7 billion ($8.7 billion) to Britain’s domestic grocery bill between December 2019 and March 2023, or £250 ($310) per household, economists at the LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance wrote in a recent paper.
Food prices rose by almost 25 percentage points over this period. “Our analysis suggests that in the absence of Brexit this figure would be 8 percentage points (30%) lower,” the researchers wrote.
Imports of meat and cheese from the European Union were now subject to high “non-tariff barriers.”
DALLAS — Britain might have fallen out of love with Boris Johnson. But Ukraine’s allies in the U.S. reckon the charismatic ex-prime minister is still the perfect messenger to shore up support for the war in wavering Republican heartlands.
Pro-Ukraine think tankers on Monday brought Johnson to a private lunch in Dallas, Texas, to meet two dozen of the state’s leading conservative figures, including politicians, donors and captains of industry.
The message Johnson was there to deliver was simple: America must stay the course in Ukraine.
“I just urge you all to stick with it,” Johnson told those seated in the grand, wood-panelled dining room in downtown Dallas, where POLITICO was also in attendance. “It will pay off massively in the long run.”
The former U.K. prime minister flew to Texas as a growing number of conservative lawmakers, candidates and activists have started to question the size of the U.S. support package for Ukraine as it attempts to fight back against the invasion launched by Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2022.
Political tensions over the war are expected to rise further as the 2024 U.S. election draws nearer.
The two most high-profile potential candidates for the Republican nomination — former President Donald Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — have both voiced skepticism about America’s unwavering support for Ukraine. Trump has pledged to cut a “deal” to “end that war in one day,” while DeSantis dismissed it as a “territorial dispute” which does not involve America’s “vital national interests — though later partially backtracked.
But Johnson told Texan Republicans on Monday: “You are backing the right horse. Ukraine is going to win. They are going to defeat Putin.”
The lunch was not the first time Johnson has lobbied U.S. lawmakers on Ukraine’s behalf. He visited Washington in January, where he publicly urged the U.S. administration to give Ukraine fighter jets, and privately met Republican lawmakers on the same trip.
Following that visit, the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) — a bipartisan, Ukraine-supporting think tank based in Washington — decided to enlist Johnson’s support for a broader mission.
The group wanted him to take his energetic, pro-conservative case for the war out of metropolitan D.C. and deep into Republican territory.
“We wanted to make that case outside of Washington — where we all live in a bubble — and to really take it to the heartland, to places like Texas, to get more support for Ukraine, and make the case to people who are skeptical about that support,” said Alina Polyakova, CEPA’s chief executive.
“In many ways Dallas and Texas are the center of the Republican debate,” she added.
Texas will be a key battleground in the 2024 Republican presidential primary. Trump held his first presidential rally in the Lone Star State in March, while DeSantis and former Governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley have also been courting votes in Texas.
Johnson is “very much seen as the architect of the Western policy” on Ukraine, Polyakova said, adding that “because Trump had nice things to say about him when he was the president,” it also gives Johnson “a lot of credibility as well with the base of the Republican Party.”
As well as the private lunch with Republicans in Dallas on Monday, Johnson also met with former U.S. President George W. Bush, who lives in the city with his wife Laura. Johnson is due to meet Texas Governor Greg Abbott in Austin on Tuesday.
Unusually, the former U.K. prime minister, who raked in almost £5 million from speaking fees in the first six months after leaving office, was not paid for Monday’s lunchtime speaking engagement. However, he did arrange the Dallas trip as a stopover en route to the SCALE Global Summit in Las Vegas, a fintech conference where he will be paid an expected six-figure sum for a scheduled speech.
Man on a mission
Johnson has kept Ukraine at the top of his public agenda since being forced to resign as PM last July over a string of personal scandals, including his attendance at COVID-19 lockdown-busting parties at his Downing Street home and office.
In power, Johnson had forged a strong personal bond with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and played a leading role in early Western efforts to arm Ukraine. His allies even mooted the idea of him becoming a formal envoy to Ukraine following his abrupt Downing Street exit, though the idea never came to fruition.
That hasn’t stopped Johnson continuing his personal lobbying push, however. He visited the Ukrainian capital Kyiv in January 2023 — despite no longer being a frontline politician — and has continued to speak in support on multiple occasions.
At the Dallas lunch on Monday, Johnson insisted Western backing for Ukraine need not be indefinite, telling those present he had “every hope that the Ukrainians will be able to deliver a very substantial counterpunch this summer,” and that he believed there was “a prospect of a complete Russian military collapse.”
And addressing concerns in Republican quarters that the U.S. should be focusing its attention on China rather than on a land war in Eastern Europe, Johnson said victory for Putin would be “terrible in its ramifications for south-east Asia, for the South China Sea, for all the areas of potential conflict between the great powers in the decades to come.”
By contrast, he added, Western solidarity on Ukraine had already sent a clear message to China.
“From Beijing’s point of view, they’re looking at this and they’re thinking this has massively increased the strategic ambiguity and the risk surrounding a venture against Taiwan,” Johnson said.
One businessman present pressed Johnson on corruption in Ukraine, which he said he had heard was “really bad again.”
But the former prime minister insisted the $50 billion spending package agreed by President Biden would prove “value for money.” The U.S. is getting a “huge, huge boost for global security for a relatively small outlay,” he said.
And Johnson being Johnson, he couldn’t resist a swipe at his old rival Emmanuel Macron, whom he has reportedly referred to in private as “Putin’s lickspittle.”
“I think it was my French friend and colleague Emmanuel Macron who said ‘Putin must not be humiliated,’” Johnson told the lunch party, adopting a faux French accent to gently mock the president.
“I think it takes an awful lot to humiliate Vladimir Putin, frankly,” Johnson went on. “I don’t think it’s our job to worry about Vladimir Putin’s ego, or his political prospects, or developments in his career.”
Whether Johnson retains the populist credentials to win over the most ardent Trump supporters Stateside remains to be seen, however.
In an interview with Nigel Farage on GB News last month, Trump said that while Johnson was a “wonderful guy” and “a friend of mine,” he had been disappointed by his time in office.
Johnson had gone “a bit on the liberal side,” Trump noted sadly. “Probably in a negative way.”
Title 42, the United States pandemic rule that had been used to immediately deport hundreds of thousands of migrants who crossed the border illegally over the last three years, has expired. Those migrants will have the opportunity to apply for asylum. President Biden’s new rules to replace Title 42 are facing legal challenges. The US Homeland Security Department announced a rule to make it extremely difficult for anyone who travels through another country, like Mexico, to qualify for asylum. Border crossings have already risen sharply, as many migrants attempted to cross before the measure expired on Thursday night. Some have said they worry about tighter controls and uncertainty ahead. Immigration is once again a major focus of the media as we examine the humanitarian, political, and public health issues migrants must face.
Below are some of the latest headlines in the Immigration channel on Newswise.
Late last year, after a breakneck ascent of British politics put her in charge of the country’s migration, crime and national security agenda, Suella Braverman revealed her political fantasy.
“I would love to (see) a front page of The Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda,” the home secretary (interior minister) told that newspaper, referring to her controversial efforts to deport asylum-seekers to the central African nation. “That’s my dream. That’s my obsession.”
Braverman is no stranger to the front pages. Her self-proclaimed “obsession” with curbing migration – and the loaded and occasionally inflammatory language she uses to address it – has attracted forceful criticism from international agencies, lawyers, rights groups and many of her own colleagues, making her arguably Britain’s most divisive politician.
But among Conservative Party members and the chief architects of Brexit, she is a star; someone who is prepared to say and do controversial things in pursuit of a singular goal.
“She’s the cutting edge of the populist, radical right-wing strain in the Conservative Party,” Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University in London, and the author of books on the party, told CNN.
“In a way, that allows her to say what some Conservative MPs would think of as the unsayable.”
Braverman has railed against what she calls an “invasion” of migrants, holding “values which are at odds with our country” – and suggested she would break international law to deport them from Britain.
And she is an equally furious culture warrior, borrowing rhetoric from the American right when lambasting “woke” culture, transgender rights and climate protesters.
But Braverman has speedily made herself a central figure in British politics; the assassin of Liz Truss’s premiership and the kingmaker of Rishi Sunak’s, she has made evident her desire to ultimately enter Downing Street as prime minister herself – a prospect that sits uneasily with much of the country’s political establishment.
Braverman, who evangelizes on the benefits of Brexit and has made migration curbs her political mission, has a backstory that seems to teem with contradictions.
She is the daughter of migrants, who wants to cut net migration to Britain to the “tens of thousands.” Her parents, both of Indian origin, arrived in the country from Kenya and Mauritius “with very little” in the 1960s.
She was a practicing lawyer before entering politics, but has displayed an unabashed indifference about whether her flagship migration bill complies with international law.
And she is an avid Francophile, sometimes speaking in French when meeting her counterpart in Paris, who championed the project to leave the European Union. Braverman says she fell in love with France while studying at the renowned Sorbonne university in Paris, taking advantage of the EU’s Erasmus program that encourages students to spend time in other parts of the continent. Brexit shut the program off to British students.
Now, she has staked her political reputation on her ability to “Stop the Boats” – an oft-repeated government pledge, borrowed from Australia’s hardline rhetoric towards asylum-seekers, to reduce the growing number of migrants crossing the English Channel on small vessels.
It is a stance that has drawn sharp criticism – including from within the traditional wing of Braverman’s Conservative Party.
“Braverman has placed far too much emphasis on curbing migration,” said Ben Ramanauskas, an economist and adviser to Truss when the previous prime minister was secretary of state for international trade. “Her priority seems to be attempting to be as cruel as possible.”
The government’s flagship bill, which was approved by MPs last week but faces scrutiny in the House of Lords, essentially hands the government the right to deport anyone arriving illegally in the United Kingdom. “It’s incredibly dangerous, hostile, cruel, and fundamentally unworkable,” migration policy expert and campaigner Zoe Gardner told CNN.
And experts say it deliberately misses the point. “Deterrents don’t work… There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between how brutally we respond to migration, and the numbers of people forced to move,” Gardner said. “We need a functioning asylum system where we process people’s claims, (and) we need to give people safe routes in order to travel.”
Braverman, however, is steadfast in the face of criticism. The Home Office told CNN in a statement that her bill “will break the business model of the people smuggling gangs and restore fairness to our asylum system. It will ensure anyone arriving via small boat or other dangerous and illegal means will be in scope for detention and swiftly removed.”
Braverman’s plans have won praise from Europe’s leading populist figures, including Italy’s hardline deputy leader Matteo Salvini and French far-right presidential candidate Eric Zemmour.
But that is company many in the Conservatives feel uncomfortable keeping.
“The UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation – not because we’re British, but because of what we stand for and what we do,” ex-Prime Minister Theresa May said in a stinging intervention in the House of Commons last month. May added last week that the bill’s removal of modern slavery protections “will consign victims to remaining in slavery.”
And Sayeeda Warsi, the first Asian chair of the Tory party, has attacked what she described as Braverman’s “racist rhetoric,” after Braverman prompted controversy by singling out British Pakistani men when attacking grooming gangs in the country.
“Braverman’s own ethnic origin has shielded her from criticism for too long,” Warsi wrote in The Guardian. “Black and brown people can be racist too.” The Home Office told CNN that Braverman “has been clear that all despicable child abusers must be brought to justice. And she will not shy away from telling hard truths, particularly when it comes to the grooming of young women and girls in Britain’s towns who have been failed by authorities over decades.”
Braverman fronts a newer, more populist streak in the UK’s ruling party – a move that has troubled some of its grandees but has found an audience among voters.
“The voters that she’s appealing to is the majority of the British public,” said James Johnson, who ran polling in May’s Downing Street operation and later founded the JL Partners pollster. “There is a very significant disconnect between what people on Twitter about immigration, and what people actually think about immigration.
“Voters do not react to (Braverman’s) language with the same outrage that some people do,” he told CNN. “(They) want their politicians to at least be trying.”
Polling shows that approval of Braverman’s tough stance on migration significantly outpaces support for the government in general – as well as approval of Braverman herself – with research often indicating that a slim majority of the public supports her plans.
And those who support her – particularly those in Euroskeptic circles, where she is almost revered – say Braverman speaks to the concerns of modern Britain in a way that her more seasoned critics cannot. “When finally even I wobbled about backing Brexit in name only, Suella stood firm,” prominent Brexit backer Steve Baker said when he supported her leadership campaign last year, praising Braverman’s resolve to defeat May’s Brexit deal and push for a harder-line departure from the EU. “It wouldn’t have happened without her.”
But research has also shown that the importance of immigration to British voters has receded since the bitter debates of the mid-2010s.
It appears inevitable that the Tories will seek to make migration a wedge issue at the next election, ensuring Braverman plenty of airtime as the government looks to draw a contrast between itself and the Labour party. But a series of brutal electoral results in local polls on Thursday will further fuel questions about whether that is a winning strategy.
Braverman’s political coming-of-age took place just as the 2016 EU referendum shifted the tectonic plates underneath Westminster, giving younger, Euroskeptic voices like hers an inroad with the public.
It was Braverman’s role fronting an anti-EU backbench committee that “propelled her to her (current) position, and she knows it,” former Conservative MP Antoinette Sandbach told CNN.
Today, she takes the populist mantle further than many of her peers on a range of matters far beyond Brexit. Braverman appears to relish “culture war” confrontations with her political enemies like few other frontline politicians; “you almost feel sometimes that she gets a kick out of ‘owning the libs,’” the politics professor Bale told CNN.
She has taken aim at the “Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati” from the despatch box, and insisted she will “not be hectored by out-of-touch lefties.” In 2019, she said she considers herself engaged in a “battle against cultural Marxism.”
Braverman’s Home Office recently reportedly backed two pub landlords who refused to remove their minstrel-style children’s toys that are considered a racist relic of the 1970s. And she has criticized police officers for “virtue signaling,” saying in a speech last week that “they shouldn’t be taking the knee.”
But those battles have left some traditional Tories cold. “The Conservative Party has moved right since I joined, and become much more like the MAGA Republicans” since the dividing line of 2016, said Sandbach, who was expelled from the party by Boris Johnson after trying to avert a no-deal Brexit. She subsequently joined the Liberal Democrats.
Those who worked alongside Braverman describe her as friendly and personable, and few doubt her ambition.
As 23-year-old Suella Fernandes, she nearly ran against her own mother to become the Tory candidate in a 2003 by-election, until the elder Fernandes – a Conservative councilor and NHS nurse – persuaded her to pull out.
Braverman succeeded in becoming an MP in 2015. In a series of tweets that bemoaned her “lamentable hopelessness,” one of her more critical backbenchers, William Wragg, claimed she asked in her first week in Parliament whether she could expense a fine for speeding.
But her determination to drive towards power has served her well. No politician emerged more triumphant from the psychodrama that has transfixed British politics than Braverman, who started 2022 as attorney general and ended it a household name – having served in three different Cabinets, twice as home secretary.
An initial departure from frontline politics theoretically came amid scandal (Braverman resigned for breaching ministerial rules by using a private email address), but her scathing parting letter turned her misconduct into a maneuver, essentially pulling the plug on Truss’s shambolic tenure.
“I have made a mistake; I accept responsibility: I resign,” Braverman wrote, in a thinly veiled attempt to contrast herself with Truss. Six days later she was back in the same post, having aligned herself with Sunak’s successful leadership bid.
Few doubt Braverman’s long-term ambitions. “You have to interpret everything Suella Braverman does and says in the light of the leadership contest that many people assume will take place if… Sunak were to lose the next election,” Bale said.
Crucial to that target is her reputation among party members and its more hardline MPs. It is those groups that pick a party leader, and she is met enthusiastically by grassroots Conservatives who tend to reflect the more right-wing, populist traits of the bloc.
That prospect undoubtedly perturbs some. “There will be many Tory MPs who simply could not stomach her as leader,” Bale added. “I think the lack of support she received in her leadership bid (last year) reflects how she was seen by the party as a whole,” Sandbach said.
Nevertheless, Braverman is storming up the approval rankings among ordinary Conservative members. In its latest monthly league table of Cabinet ministers, the ConservativeHome website – widely regarded as having its finger on the pulse of the grassroots party – puts Braverman fourth from the top with a net approval rating of 47.8. Only last November, she was sixth from bottom in the site’s regular survey of party members. “The panel seems to have decided that if the Government fails to stop the boats it won’t be for want of the Home Secretary trying,” wrote the website’s editors in April.
Should Braverman succeed at her next bid for the party leadership, her critics fear another rightwards shift in British politics.
“Braverman has taken some cues from the US, and also from history,” Gardner said. “She’s recognized that in the current political climate, her way of creating an impact… (is) positioning herself as a Trump tribute act.
“She’s setting herself up to lead a more extreme, right-wing populist version of the Tory party.”
