Latest news with #pro-Brussels
Business Times
15-07-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Europe E3 re-emerges as economic and political powerhouse
GERMAN Chancellor Friedrich Merz makes his first official visit to the United Kingdom on Thursday (Jul 17) to sign a landmark bilateral friendship deal. The agreement confirms not only warmer economic and political ties between London and Berlin, but also the post-Brexit re-emergence of the longstanding, so-called E3 group which includes France too. For much of the period since the UK's 2016 referendum on its European Union membership, relations between these top three European economies have been chilly. The ardently pro-Brussels French President Emmanuel Macron and his various German counterparts, including former chancellor Angela Merkel, still believe Brexit to be an act of political vandalism to the continent. So much so in fact that Poland, the largest economy in Central and Eastern Europe, has increasingly been perceived as a challenger for the third slot in Europe's post-Brexit E3 group. This Paris-Berlin-Warsaw trilateral relationship is sometimes called the Weimar Triangle. However, since the Ukraine war began, this German-French-Polish axis has had less prominence, important as it remains. The reasons behind this include Poland's cultivation of its economic and political relationship with the United States following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. So in the period since the pandemic – which saw the Ukraine conflict and Donald Trump become the US president for the second time – there has been a growing realisation in France and Germany of the need to collaborate more with the UK, and vice versa. This has seen the three G7 and G20 nations re-emerge as a triumvirate of regional powers, including in their quest to build Europe's relationship with Trump. This rejuvenated E3 dynamic has been evident on several high-profile platforms, including when then US president Joe Biden visited Berlin on Oct 18 last year. The European leaders he met for a quadrilateral meeting during his stay were UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Macron and then German chancellor Olaf Scholz. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The warmer ties between London and Berlin will be deepened on Thursday in a treaty that will cover defence, economic growth, and wider issues. It will reportedly include a mutual assistance clause specifying that a threat to one nation would be regarded as a threat to the other. This week's UK-German deal is key as it helps cement the E3 trilateral alliance. France is already linked to Germany via the Aachen Treaty and to the UK via the Lancaster House Treaty. The relationship between Starmer and Merz could be especially key for European and wider international relations in the coming years. Both are potentially key reformers whose periods in office may overlap with the next UK election probably in 2028 or 2029, and the next Germany ballot expected in 2029. At the same time as there are warming ties between Berlin and London, the relationship between Paris and London, as well as between Paris and Berlin, is warming up too. Of course, the Franco-German alliance has long been the motor of European integration in the post-World War II era and Macron enjoyed a generally positive relationship with Merkel, which allowed them to achieve much together on the international stage. However, cooperation between the two powers ebbs and flows depending upon the personalities of the office holders in Berlin and Paris. Merz's predecessor as chancellor, Scholz, and Macron, had an uneven relationship, but this may be changing in a positive direction under Merz. Meanwhile, warmer Franco-UK ties were showcased again last week with Macron making his first ever UK state visit, to London and Windsor Castle. The last such state trip by a French president to the UK was by Nicolas Sarkozy almost two decades ago in 2008. Whereas much of the UK-German bilateral relationship has centred on economics, security is key to UK-French ties as both are nuclear states with UN Security Council permanent membership, unlike other European partners. The Lancaster House deal between the two powers opened a window to jointly update nuclear arsenals which is as yet unfulfilled, and there is potential for broader military coordination. Positive as the re-emergence of the UK-French-German E3 relationship is for Europe, the ties will continue to have challenges in the post-Brexit era. This is especially so between the UK and France, and the UK and Germany. Take the example of the ties between Paris and London. Macron had one of the hardest stances on the UK's exit from the EU in the period from 2016. This reflects the complex, contradictory relationship that Paris has long had with London in the context of European affairs. Macron's Brexit positioning, including his robust stance on precluding future UK economic access to the single market, was reinforced by broader French plans to pitch Paris as a competing financial centre to London which began in earnest under the presidency of Francois Hollande. This saw former finance minister Michel Sapin and Hollande's Brexit special envoy Christian Noyer – a former Bank of France governor – openly promoting Paris with key financial firms. This has continued under Macron as he hailed the decision to relocate the European Banking Authority (EBA) to Paris from London as a 'recognition of France's attractiveness and European commitment'. French officials hope that the EBA's relocation will help bring still more UK banking jobs to France's capital city. What France's position on Brexit underlines is how each EU state has distinctive political, economic and social interests that have informed their stance on the UK's exit. Thus, while the EU-27 were, in general, remarkably unified in their negotiations with London, the positions of the individual countries varied according to factors such as trade and wider economic ties and patterns of migration with the UK, domestic election pressures, and levels of eurosceptic support within their populaces. While the position of Paris has now moderated, the two nations remain misaligned in some key areas, including fishing rights. Another example is migration, where Starmer is under growing pressure to stop people illegally crossing the English Channel from France. Last week, Starmer and Macron agreed a new 'one in, one out' returns scheme which would see the UK deporting to France undocumented people arriving in small boats, in return for accepting an equal number of legitimate asylum seekers with UK family connections. However, only time will tell how successful this will be in halting illegal migrants making so-called small boat crossings. Taken together, all of these developments underline that the E3's re-emergence has significant potential to increase collaboration further between Europe's leading three economies. However, the distinctive post-Brexit interests of each state will continue to cause tensions from time to time, which will remain a barrier to the full resetting of the trilateral relations. The writer is an associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics
New Statesman
01-07-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
The rebellions against Starmer are only just beginning
Photo by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street To rebel is to wage war. Specifically, if you go back to the Latin, it means to wage war again – the conquered rising up against their conquerors, insurgents who refuse to let grievances go. Etymology is probably not front of mind for Keir Starmer as the vote on his government's highly contentious welfare reform bill looms today (1 July). Last week, 126 Labour MPs – nearly a third of the parliamentary party, easily enough to defeat the government – put their names to a wrecking amendment. A stand-off ensued, and eventually it was the government that blinked. In an attempt to win over the backbenchers, concessions were hastily offered, concessions that will leave Rachel Reeves with a £3bn hole to fill in. But that still may not be enough. Around 50 rebels are thought to be holding firm – including, somewhat ironically, one who was until very recently a Labour whip. Assuming the numbers are accurate (which, given how this disaster seems to have caught Downing Street by surprise, isn't worth counting on), a government with a majority of 156 should be able to ram its reforms through with a revolt of this size. But what happens next? Rebellions are not just humiliating for the prime ministers who suffer them. As the derivation suggests, they are rarely a one-time thing. For MPs mulling over whether to defy the whips and vote with their conscience or be well-behaved little backbenchers who might get a promotion one day, the data shows rebelling gets easier with practice. Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart from the University of Nottingham analysed rebellions in the 2001 parliament under Tony Blair and found a worrying trend of MPs who had previously been obedient getting a taste for revolt. Matt Bevington from UK In A Changing Europe pointed out that, once Theresa May had lost one vote on Brexit, the situation spiralled: her government suffered ten defeats on Brexit votes in nine months. As well as altering the psyche of the backbench MP, big rebellions – whether they succeed or not – automatically reflect the party leader in a way that is uncomfortably revealing. When David Cameron lost a vote in 2015 regarding the rules around a future EU referendum, it wasn't just his personal authority that took a blow. Cameron, who had just won a slim majority earlier that year, lost by 27 votes when 37 of his own MPs joined Labour in opposing the government. Both the scale of the rebellion and the willingness of Labour to work with the Tory Eurosceptics should have sent red lights flashing on No 10's dashboard. It signalled that the government could not count on Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party in its coming fight over the EU, regardless of the broadly pro-Brussels sensibilities of the Labour MPs and members – a lesson that proved inescapably true during the referendum campaign itself. Theresa May's premiership after the 2017 election was essentially one rebellion after another, each sapping at her authority and backing her further into a Brexit corner. The parliamentary arithmetic of pragmatists in government attempting to work out something the EU might actually accept, hard-Brexiteer Tory rebels willing to brook no compromise and opposition MPs intent on being as obstructive as possible meant there was a majority against every conceivable option but no majority for any of them. May was eventually chewed up and spat out by her government's own contradictions. May, of course, had the excuse that she didn't have a majority to work with. Rishi Sunak did, having inherited the 'stonking' electoral triumph won by Boris Johnson. He ended up equally trapped between his backbenchers and reality, suffering a humiliating rebellion when 61 of his MPs backed an amendment condemning the Rwanda bill for not being tough enough. The fact that Sunak went on to win the vote didn't matter. His authority – already fragile after failing to win a leadership contest in his own right – never recovered. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe That's the thing about rebellions: once MPs realise they have the numbers to force the government into positions it would rather avoid, they rarely forget it. Starmer is now facing down a revolt of a similar size to those who challenged Sunak with the Rwanda amendment, but at the start of the parliament (which celebrates its first birthday on Friday) rather than the end of it. It is delusional to imagine the 126 MPs who managed to extract major concessions from the government over the welfare cuts will settle down and play nice for the next four years. They've learned a powerful lesson from all this. How has a government with a seemingly unassailable majority got into such trouble early on? The issue is partly one of substance: asking Labour MPs to vote for measures that seem tailor-made to antagonise the Labour base and go against Labour principles was always going to be a brutal struggle. And there are major issues of party management. Labour MPs talk openly of feeling disregarded and ignored, patronised by the leadership and taken for granted. Keir Starmer clearly hasn't done enough to get to know his 400-odd foot soldiers and win them over. This has been bubbling over for some time – perhaps since he withdrew the whip from seven rebels 18 days into office. There's another issue. Backbenchers with rebellion on the mind talk of being unwilling to have a vote cutting disability benefits on their record. That record is very easy to find: online on the official parliamentary website, or via They Work For You, where you can look up your MP and see a helpful summary of how they've voted on a range of topical issues – like, for example, disability benefits. There is no allowance made for 'the whip told me to' – and nor should there be. Transparency in politics is undoubtedly positive. It is good that voters can see how the people elected to represent them are getting on with that job. But in the days before the internet, MPs didn't have to worry about constituents marking (or, at least, being able to mark) them on every vote. They had more leeway to back an unpopular measure for the sake of keeping the government running smoothly. They Work For You is run by the mySociety project, whose aim is to use the internet to empower citizens to take a more active role in democracy. It launched in 2003 – the same year a staggering 139 Labour MPs voted against the Blair government, opposing the invasion of Iraq. No one is suggesting the Brexit hardliners of the May era or Sunak's Rwanda challengers made decisions purely on the basis of ensuring their profiles gave the correct impression for the voters they cared most about. But it's hard to imagine this didn't feature at all in their thinking. As he heads towards his one-year anniversary in government this Friday, Starmer should be aware that the same will feature in the thinking of the 126 MPs who signed last week's letter, whatever happens with the welfare vote today. If you put your principles first by rebelling once, the temptation is there to rebel again. The clue's in the name. [See also: A humbling week for Keir Starmer] Related
Budapest Times
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Budapest Times
Orbán: Brussels and Ukraine are assembling a puppet government
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said in an interview with public radio on Friday that Brussels and Ukraine are assembling a puppet government with the aim of changing Hungary's policy on Ukraine after the elections. PM Orbán said 'they went looking for a prime minister candidate, a party leader and now a defense minister.' 'We should have no doubt that we are facing another political concept and strategy, another future for Hungary. A pro-Brussels puppet government would mean that the government is pro-Ukraine and the defense minister is pro-war. Even Hungarian parties do little to disguise that. The Tisza and the [Democratic Coalition] are essentially openly pro-Ukraine political organisations,' he said. Commenting on an upcoming EU summit, PM Orbán said the 'only topic in Brussels is Ukraine's EU accession. This is the number one issue of international politics in Brussels now, not tomorrow or the day after, but here and now.' 'They think in Brussels that Europe is at war, that Ukraine is its vanguard fighting our war.'
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump-backed nationalist wins Poland election
A nationalist boxer-turned-historian backed by US President Donald Trump narrowly won Poland's presidential election. Karol Nawrocki's victory is a blow to Poland's centrist, pro-Brussels Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who has sought to loosen abortion restrictions, pass a civil-partnership law, and reverse legislation that the European Union said politicized the judiciary — efforts the new head of state could veto or slow. The campaign focused on security and migration, issues closely tied to Poland's relationship with Ukraine. But while both presidential candidates pledged to maintain support for Kyiv, Nawrocki was more critical of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and took a harder line against Ukrainian refugees in Poland, accusing them of taking advantage of Polish generosity.
LeMonde
20-05-2025
- Politics
- LeMonde
Defeated Romanian nationalist candidate asks court to annul presidential elections
George Simion, the nationalist candidate who lost Romania's presidential election, said on Tuesday, May 20, he was asking the constitutional court to cancel the vote, alleging interference. Bucharest mayor Nicusor Dan, a pro-EU centrist, won almost 54% of the vote to beat Simion, leader of the far-right AUR party and a fan of US President Donald Trump. Once the votes in Sunday's race were counted, Simion conceded defeat, congratulating Dan on his win. But in an about-turn on Tuesday, he announced his decision to contest the results. "I officially ask (the) Constitutional Court to annul Romanian presidential elections," he posted on X, citing "external interferences by state and non-state actors" – and including in the message flag icons for France and Moldova. Neither those countries "nor anyone else has the right to interfere in the elections of another state," he said, calling the election a "farce." Online, supporters have been posting numerous comments blaming "the system" for "stealing" Simion's victory. Simion said on Tuesday he congratulated Dan, "considering the figures from the polling stations." "I never want to see bloodshed in our country that would justify chaos," he said. He has repeatedly alleged electoral fraud, without giving any evidence. France's foreign intelligence service on Monday rejected claims from Telegram founder Pavel Durov that its chief had requested the tech mogul to ban pro-conservative Romanian accounts from the platform ahead of the election. Last year's annulled vote The ballot came five months after Romania's constitutional court annulled an election over allegations of Russian interference and massive social media promotion of the far-right frontrunner, who was not allowed to stand again. Tens of thousands have protested the vote annulment, with top US officials also criticizing it. For the May vote, both Dan, 55, and Simion, 38, campaigned on platforms of change, tapping into voter frustration with a political class widely deemed corrupt. Unlike the pro-Brussels Dan, an independent who promised an "honest" Romania, Simion slammed the EU's "absurd policies" and vowed to stop aid to war-torn Ukraine, which neighbors NATO member Romania. Turnout was close to 65% – a high for the country – compared to 53% for the May 4 first round, in which Simion secured most votes. The election turmoil has increased economic uncertainty in the EU's most indebted country, which is grappling with high inflation.
