The brain behind Labour's EU deal

Photo byThe long journey to this week's EU-British reset of relations began with a phone call from the opposition leader Keir Starmer to his old friend Nick Thomas-Symonds on 4 September, 2023. Sitting in his London flat, he was told that if there was to be a Labour government, Starmer saw healing battered relations with the EU as a top priority.
The result was the up-ending of Thomas-Symonds' life as he began a relentless shuttle between his family home, which he shares with his sixth-form sweetheart and their three children; London; and the capitals of Europe. Each week over the next year he left Abersychan – once the hometown of that celebrated European Roy Jenkins – for Paris, Berlin, Brussels, Rome, Warsaw, Helsinki, Tallinn and even the Vatican.
It was an exhausting Eurostar odyssey, building the personal relationships which culminated in this week's 'turning the page' love-in and – equally important – the prospect of annual EU-UK summits in the years to come. Standing in the Downing Street garden on Monday (19 May) the European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told assembled dignitaries that he had been in such close contact with Thomas-Symonds that his wife had suspiciously challenged him on the identity of the 'Nikki' appearing so relentlessly on his phone log. (Welsh Penderyn whisky was also presented. Šefčovič is trying to convert the Welshman to Slovakian red wine.)
From those first days in opposition, Thomas-Symonds had constructed a three-pillar strategy. Because of Starmer's public commitment not to restore the single market, customs union or free movement – which he thinks cannot be revised in this Parliament – he would concentrate on new relationships in, first, security and defence; second the safety of citizens, covering both crime and migration; and third, trade and growth.
Some economists have expressed disappointment at the relatively small numerical impact of all this; the Prime Minister has spoken of an additional £9 billion annually for the economy, very little measured against the £100 billion economists say has been lost because of the Brexit deal. But Thomas-Symonds says that is a deliberately low, cautious estimate. It only refers to the food and agriculture deal and the emissions scheme, not to any future access to the gigantic new €150 billion European defence investment fund.
About this, he is bullish. 'The principle is that to access the fund you have to have a security and defence partnership, which we now have. There are further negotiations around important details such as protecting intellectual property but there is very wide acceptance that we must not fragment the European defence industry.' The share prices for BAE Systems, Babcock, and Rolls-Royce tend to support his optimism.
Thomas-Symonds also emphasises the importance of the emissions trading deal which will save the UK £800m annually in European taxes, and of energy cooperation more generally: 'We have undersea cables between the EU and the UK already and we are not taking full advantage of the interconnectors and the offshore wind.'
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
On the e-gates issue, so important to tourists and business travellers, he has been negotiating separately with the Port of Dover and Eurostar. The further EU biometric checks ahead, he points out, will be useful in tackling illegal immigration. But on airport queues, he accepts the next stage is for individual European countries: like Starmer, he hopes summer tourists will notice a big difference.
Thomas-Symonds is rare in the current cabinet in having a deep interest in Labour history. The recent biographer of Harold Wilson, he tells me that he drew inspiration from the former leader: 'I have talked about ruthless pragmatism, and I took a lot from Harold Wilson's renegotiation of terms with the Common Market in the mid-1970s.
Wilson was determined to keep Britain in. After Brexit, things are different for Labour, however much many in the party wish they were not. 'Our mandate is clear,' said Thomas-Symonds, 'it is not to return to the single market, or customs union or free movement. But I do believe that closer cooperation with this huge partner, worth £800 billion in trade, is strongly in our national interest.'
When I ask him why the principle of dynamic alignment on standards cannot be extended from food and agriculture to other areas, he sternly reminds me that as with the US and Indian trade deals, 'these are all sovereign decisions by the government'.
He does not envisage a further lurch towards the EU before the next general election and, amid the current hullabaloo about 'betrayal' and 'surrender', he is keen for a robust political fight with the Tories and Reform over a deal which business has greeted so enthusiastically. If there is a certain wily mistiness about the longer-term future then – well – both Harold and Roy would approve.
[See also: The EU-UK reset exposes the limits of a 'geopolitical Europe']
Related

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Sky News

12 minutes ago

• Sky News

Met Police chief 'frustrated' at planned protest to support Palestine Action - as government moves to ban the group

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley says he is "shocked and frustrated" at a planned protest in support of Palestine Action. The demonstration, due to take place in Westminster later, comes as the government moves to ban the group under anti-terror laws. Activists from Palestine Action hit the headlines last week after targeting RAF Brize Norton and damaging two military aircraft in a significant security breach. 1:33 Home Secretary Yvette Cooper will update MPs on the move to proscribe the organisation, which would make it a criminal offence to belong to or support it. Sir Mark said that - until this happens - the force has "no power in law" to prevent the protest from taking place, but lawbreakers will be "dealt with robustly". He added: "This is an organised extremist criminal group, whose proscription as terrorists is being actively considered. "Members are alleged to have caused millions of pounds of criminal damage, assaulted a police officer with a sledgehammer and last week claimed responsibility for breaking into an airbase and damaging aircraft. "Multiple members of the group are awaiting trial accused of serious offences." He added that - while the right to protest is essential - "actions in support of such a group go beyond what most would see as a legitimate protest". Over the weekend, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said he could not rule out the possibility of a foreign power being behind Palestine Action. Any move to proscribe the group must be debated and approved by MPs and peers. Speaking to Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips on Sky News, former justice secretary Lord Charlie Falconer suggested that vandalising aircraft would not solely provide legal justification for such a move. 2:45 Lord Falconer said: "I am not aware of what Palestine Action has done beyond the painting of things on the planes in Brize Norton, they may have done other things I didn't know. "But generally, that sort of demonstration wouldn't justify proscription so there must be something else that I don't know about." Palestine Action has staged a series of protests in recent months - spraying the offices of Allianz Insurance in London, and vandalising Donald Trump's golf course in Ayrshire.

The National

27 minutes ago

• The National

The proscription of Palestine Action has frightening implications

The legal proscription of groups such as Palestine Action is founded upon Islamophobic counter-terror legislation, which has disproportionately targeted Muslims and securitised issues related to the Middle East. It risks criminalising not only membership of an effective activist group but also a host of pro-Palestinian statements and actions. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is expected to announce the ban today after Palestine Action members broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire last week and sprayed two military planes with red paint. Proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation sets a dangerous precedent against anti-war activism but also represents the suppression by successive UK governments of activism drawing attention to British support for Israeli war crimes in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran. READ MORE: 'He should be in the Hague': Laura Kuenssberg slammed for Israeli president interview One reason why Palestine Action is facing such a harsh reprisal is the clear embarrassment the Brize Norton event has caused the British Government. By breaking into an RAF air base, Palestine Action has sharply highlighted the limits of British power and security, at a time where Keir Starmer's Government seems keen to impress a reactionary US administration and show support for Israeli aggression in Iran. Meanwhile, the tactics of Palestine Action,have proven to be highly effective. Targeting institutions complicit in the genocide of Palestinians – such as Israeli-based military contractor Elbit Systems UK – it has used highly visual forms of direct activism to great effect, with occupations, the scaling of public structures and the spray painting and daubing of buildings. Such activism has both disrupted the British military and British-based businesses profiting from war and genocide, and tapped into a widespread sense of disapproval and disgust across the public at UK Government for Israel, a country which has carried out mass killings. The use of counter-terrorism powers against Palestine Action may seem surprising, but it represents a long process by which successive UK governments have sought to clamp down on activism highlighting British hypocrisy on the international stage. For many years, counter-terror police have been conducting intelligence gathering on climate activists, to see if their activity could 'indicate a path towards terrorism'. Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil have regularly faced harassment and threats of counter-terror action. The proscribing of Palestine Action not only forms part of an assault on activism, but also showcases how counter-terrorism has become increasingly anti-Palestinian in its orientation, with British authorities deliberately and systematically conflating support for Palestine with terrorism. Academics and human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, have long detailed experiences of harassment by counter-terror police, based on actual or perceived support of Palestinian rights. The UK Government Prevent programme has played a significant part in securitising Palestinian activism, with schools students as young as five being reported to authorities after expressing sentiments in support of Palestine. Since the start of massive Israeli violence in Gaza in October 2023, such reports have skyrocketed by 455%, with students told to remove badges, stickers and T-shirts that have 'free Palestine' on them, alleged retaliatory measures against college students for tweeting support or joining pickets for Palestine; and reports of university exclusions, suspensions and investigations, as well as the cancellations of pro-Palestinian events. This normalisation of targeting of pro-Palestinian activism has had severe legal impacts, leading to prosecutions based on anti-activist sentiment. These include the prosecution of three women who displayed images of paragliders during a protest and a man for wearing a green Saudi Arabian headband containing the basic statement of the Islamic faith 'shahada', on the charge of 'carrying or displaying an article in a public place in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion' that they were supporting Hamas. In addition to the long trend by successive UK governments of criminalising Palestinian activism, proscription now frames it as a terror threat – equating Palestinian activism with, for instance, the 2005 London bombings, the murder of 51 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand, or the execution of 77 left-wing youth at Utøya, Norway. The use of such powers has frightening implications for Palestinian activism, not just because it will be framed as a security threat to the British state, but also because of how such legislation is constructed. The Act of Proscription, as detailed under Part II of the Terrorism Act 2000, not only makes it illegal to be a member of a banned group, but also criminalises a host of other actions that are, or can be perceived as, being linked to the aims or objectives of the group. It is not just a terror offence to belong, or profess to belong to, a proscribed organisation, in the UK or overseas – it is a terror offence to engage in acts that may be considered as supportive. Under Part II, Section 12 of the Act, supportive acts are defined as 'moral support or approval' of a proscribed organisation, expressing an opinion or belief supportive of a proscribed organisation, or encouraging support for the activities of such an organisation. The implementation of this law, when used against a non-violent Palestinian activist group, is the criminalisation of anyone who publicly expresses sentiment in support of Palestine Action's aims. Its website lists these as 'ending global participation in Israel's genocidal and apartheid regime' and seeking to 'make it impossible for … companies to profit from the oppression of Palestinians' Proscription also criminalises the wearing of clothing or carrying of signs that may 'arouse reasonable suspicion' that an individual supports a proscribed organisation, under Section 13 of the Act. This includes publishing images of such items online. Pro-Palestinian clothes, the Palestinian keffiyeh, Palestinian flags and signs are now very squarely in the crosshairs of counter-terror police, creating a vast array of possibility for prosecution of activists. The proscription of Palestine Action places people in Scotland and across Britain in very dangerous legal territory. Heavy-handed measures are increasingly being deployed by the British state to prosecute non-violent groups and activists as 'terrorists'. Successive UK governments have sought to roll back human and democratic rights under the guise of counter-terrorism, prevent activism critical of the British state, and to conflate Muslim communities and Middle Eastern issues with terrorism. The banning of Palestine Action represents an attempt to crush dissent that highlights British complicity in war crimes and embarrasses the UK Government. It also introduces a host of deeply worrying possibilities for the prosecution of activists, journalists, academics – indeed, anyone who speaks out in support of Palestinian rights, an end to the genocide and the use of public activism. Proscription shows the contempt the UK Government has for Palestinian freedom, and should be a loud alarm for those who value democracy and human rights, in times of genocide. Richard McNeil-Willson lectures in the Islamic and Middle Eastern studies department at the University of Edinburgh

The National

32 minutes ago

• The National

Scottish Labour MSPs missing more Holyrood votes than Tories and SNP

In recent weeks, the number of Labour MSPs failing to vote on motions in the Scottish Parliament has increased, leading to concerns that their absence could be "changing the result of the votes". Last Wednesday for example – the most recent day of voting at the time of writing – 39% of Labour MSPs (nine members) did not vote in the chamber, compared with 6.7% of Tory MSPs (two members) and 1.6% of SNP (one member). The National analysed all the main votes which have taken place so far in June, excluding amendments, and found that among the three main parties, Labour consistently had the highest percentage of absent MSPs, with the Tories following not far behind, while the SNP had the highest turnout. READ MORE: Labour blasted as 'deeply authoritarian' over plans to proscribe Palestine Action Between June 1 and 19, an average of 20.1% of Labour MSPs failed to vote in motions, compared to 14% Tory and 6.6% SNP. Of the 10 votes that took place in that time, there were only four instances where turnout for both Labour and the Tories was higher than 90%. Meanwhile, the SNP turnout was above 90% in all of these votes. Scottish Labour had a higher turnout when it came to their own motions, such as their Planning motion on June 11, which was missed by one MSP, and their motion on Scotland's medical and nursing workforce crisis also on June 11, which all Labour MSPs voted on. More Labour MSPs tended to turn up when it came to voting on bills. At the Scottish Languages Bill debate on June 17, 17.4% of Labour MSPs did not vote, compared with 20% Tory and 8.2% SNP. And at the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill on June 10, 8.7% of Labour MSPs were absent, while the Tories had double, at 16.67%, and the SNP had 6.6%. But when these figures are compared with the start of the year, it shows a significant drop in attendance from Labour MSPs. READ MORE: Presiding Officer to step down at Holyrood election The National found that in January, an average of 7.9% of Labour MSPs failed to vote, compared with 9.1% Tory and 6.6% SNP. And in February, the average number of MSPs missing votes stood at 15% Labour, 10.1% Tory and 6.2% SNP. When looking at the smaller parties, the Greens and LibDems – which have seven and five MSPs respectively – were much more likely to show up to votes. In fact, since the beginning of this year, the Scottish Greens have had a full turnout at 86.9% of votes (53 out of 61 votes), while the LibDems had 65.6% (40 votes). In the instances where full turnout was not recorded, this was down to a maximum of two MSPs not voting. READ MORE: Scottish civil service reaches 'record' size, figures show There is one Alba MSP (Ash Regan) and one Independent MSP (John Mason), who turned up to 75.4% (46 votes) and 100% of votes respectively. For parties with higher numbers of MSPs, it is more difficult to achieve a full turnout. The SNP, which have 60 MSPs, recorded a full turnout at just two votes (3.3%) – the Assisted Dying Bill on May 13 and an SNP motion on Scotland's Hydrogen Future on May 1. The only instance where every single Tory MSP (of which there are 30) took part in a vote was for the Assisted Dying Bill (1.6% of the total number of votes), while Labour (which have 23 MSPs) saw a full turnout at four votes (6.6%) – but three of those were motions submitted by Labour, while the fourth was for the Assisted Dying Bill. While it is expected that MSPs will not be able to make every single vote, such as due to illness or maternity leave, there are proxy voting arrangements in place which mean that the absence would not affect the overall result of a vote. Commenting on the figures, Greens MSP Ross Greer – who has voted in every motion analysed by The National – said that "if Labour MSPs don't want to do the jobs they were elected to, they should resign". He added that the proxy voting arrangements mean "there is no excuse for almost half of the Labour group casting no vote at all" in some cases. Ross Greer MSP"That is bad enough on ordinary motions, but it is totally unacceptable when we are deciding on the laws of this country," he said. Greer added that "it is a privilege to serve Scotland in Parliament", and that turning up to vote is "the bare minimum" that voters expect of those they elect. READ MORE: SNP the only pro-indy party not to sign pledge condemning Gaza genocide He continued: "This isn't a one off. The attendance of Labour and Tory MSPs has been shocking for years. "It has absolutely changed the result of votes and therefore meant that Scotland's laws are different than they otherwise would have been if everyone elected by the public had actually turned up to do their job." Commenting, SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson said: "The fact Labour and Tory MSPs are increasingly failing to turn up to Parliament shows that Scotland is always an afterthought for the unionist parties. "SNP MSPs have the best attendance rate of any party – we are in Parliament every day, standing up for our constituents – while Labour and the Tories are nowhere to be seen when it matters most." Scottish Labour did not respond when approached for comment.