Peter Mandelson criticises ‘fetish' for scrapping EU rules that work in Britain's favour

Peter Mandelson has hit out at what he said was a 'fetish' for scrapping EU rules that work in Britain's favour but warned that Britain will not rejoin the bloc 'for the foreseeable future'.
Speaking at the Atlantic Council in Washington, the UK's ambassador to the US defended Sir Keir's recently signed 'reset' deal with the EU, saying the previous deal Britain had struck with the bloc was 'pretty miserable' and denying that closer alignment would begin the process of Britain rejoining.
'Why make a fetish of dis-alignment when we know that it's in the interests of our business and traders to pursue and to follow those rules and standards', he said.
The previous Conservative government had promised to scrap up to 4,000 EU laws as part of a post-Brexit bonfire of regulation, but watered down the plans almost entirely as a result of the massive administrative burden.
Lord Mandelson also argued that Britain's job on the world stage is to 'be of huge usefulness, both to the United States and the European Union'.
He added: 'We're not in the European Union anymore, and we're not going to go back for the foreseeable future, certainly. But we are European, a European country.
'We left the European Union with a pretty miserable deal, frankly, unfair to us, not particularly favourable in the long term to the EU.'
Sir Keir – who has made the Brexit reset a centrepiece of his administration – said last week's summit marks a 'new era' of relations with the bloc, adding that it is about 'moving on from stale old debates' and 'looking forward, not backwards'.
Lord Mandelson also used his Atlantic Council address to argue that the transatlantic alliance needs a 'boot up the backside', saying that Britain must work closely with the US to take on Chinese technological dominance.
The UK's ambassador to the US argued Beijing represents a 'far more dynamic and formidable strategic rival than the Soviet Union ever was', urging Britain and the US to combine forces to 'drive the scientific breakthroughs that will define this century'.
'Rather than stifling these transformative technologies through excessive regulation, our two governments must unleash their immense potential for human benefit and Western advantage', he said.
While Donald Trump almost blocked Lord Mandelson's ambassadorship because of concerns about his links to China, the Labour peer now appears to have turned against Beijing, saying there is 'there is nothing in this world I fear more than China winning the race for technological dominance'.
The ambassador warned that there is now a 'new dynamic between China and the west', saying Britain and the US 'must not be afraid... to take on aspects of China's behaviour and policies'.
He also urged European countries to step up their defence spending and stop 'living in a fantasy created by the US security guarantee', accusing Europe of having spent decades relying on the US to defend it in the face of global threats.
Lord Mandelson said: "If we are serious about rebuilding confidence in the international system… we need to devote an enormous amount of energy and goodwill to preserve, sustain and deepen the alliances which exist between like-minded countries for the UK and the rest of Europe.
'We must reboot the transatlantic alliance. Indeed, a boot up the proverbial backside is needed now to deliver peace through strength across three interconnected domains - military, economic and technological."
Lord Mandelson added: "We have lived in a fantasy created by the US security guarantee, complacent that a friendly heavyweight across the water would be always there when the going gets tough.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Auto Blog

36 minutes ago

• Auto Blog

Audi May Take Drastic Action To Dodge Tariffs

German Media Fears Massive Costs The ongoing uncertainty around how bad tariffs may get ahead of the July 9 deadline for agreement, for European automakers in particular, is no reason to stay idle. Regardless of what the final impact will be, tariffs aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and according to German magazine Der Spiegel, Audi is considering building a production facility somewhere in the southern U.S. to minimize the effects. But it's not an easy call to make. As noted by Automotive News, building a plant here would be 'the more expensive option out of a number of scenarios being considered, with company sources estimating costs of up to €4 billion (approximately $4.6 billion). So will it happen anyway? An Audi spokesperson has confirmed that the automaker intends to build its U.S. presence, but that's typical non-committal public relations speak. 0:04 / 0:09 Walmart is selling a 'heavy duty' $89 step ladder for $48, and shoppers say it's 'sturdy and secure' Watch More Audi Will Make A Decision This Year, Probably Source:'We are currently examining various scenarios for this. We are confident that we will make a decision this year in consultation with the [Volkswagen] Group on how this will look in concrete terms,' the spokesperson wrote in an email. Audi has been rumored to be examining the viability of a U.S. plant for several years, but up until now, the automaker has been performing relatively well in America, although Audi's 2024 sales showed a sharp year-on-year decline of 14%, indicating that changes must be made somewhere, regardless of current or future tariff measures. To help effect that change, Audi is working on a fresh new design language, and U.S. manufacturing (or at least assembly) may help future arrivals find broader appeal with competitive pricing. BMW has been producing cars in South Carolina since 1994, and in those 30-odd years, it's grown to become the largest automotive exporter by value in the U.S. Perhaps Audi would benefit from a similar approach. Where Audi Could Put Down Roots As part of the Volkswagen Group, Audi wouldn't necessarily have to start from scratch. The VW brand operates a plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where the ID.4 EV and the Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport SUVs are produced, and its Scout Motors brand is building one in Columbia, South Carolina. But that's it – Porsche won't be moving production to America because its sales volumes would not justify such extensive investment, and its customer base is not unused to absorbing exorbitant price increases. As we noted earlier, Audi hasn't made a decision yet because it's exploring other options. One of those reportedly is to negotiate a tariff import deal with the U.S. government, which compatriot automakers BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and VW are said to be collaboratively pursuing alongside the Ingolstadt-based manufacturer. BMW and Mercedes are the only exporters in this group, but all have made significant investments in the U.S. About the Author Sebastian Cenizo View Profile

Daily Mail​

an hour ago

• Daily Mail​

This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG

The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.

The Independent

2 hours ago

• The Independent

Photos of Lesbos 10 years after the migration crisis

This is a documentary photo story curated by AP photo editors. In 2015, more than 1 million migrants and refugees arrived in Europe — the majority by sea, landing in Lesbos, where the north shore is just 10 kilometers (6 miles) from Turkey. The influx of men, women and children fleeing war and poverty sparked a humanitarian crisis that shook the European Union to its core. A decade later, the fallout still reverberates on the island and beyond. For many, Greece was a place of transit. They continued on to northern and western Europe. Many who applied for asylum were granted international protection; thousands became European citizens. Countless more were rejected, languishing for years in migrant camps or living in the streets. Some returned to their home countries. Others were kicked out of the European Union. For Namjoyan, Lesbos is a welcoming place — many islanders share a refugee ancestry, and it helps that she speaks their language. But migration policy in Greece, like much of Europe, has shifted toward deterrence in the decade since the crisis. Far fewer people are arriving illegally. Officials and politicians have maintained that strong borders are say enforcement has gone too far and violates fundamental EU rights and values. 'Migration is now at the top of the political agenda, which it didn't use to be before 2015,' said Camille Le Coz Director of the Migration Policy Institute Europe, noting changing EU alliances. 'We are seeing a shift toward the right of the political spectrum.' A humanitarian crisis turned into a political one In 2015, boat after boat crowded with refugees crashed onto the doorstep of Elpiniki Laoumi, who runs a fish tavern across from a Lesbos beach. She fed them, gave them water, made meals for aid organizations. 'You would look at them and think of them as your own children,' said Laoumi, whose tavern walls today are decorated with thank-you notes. From 2015 to 2016, the peak of the migration crisis, more than 1 million people entered Europe through Greece alone. The immediate humanitarian crisis — to feed, shelter and care for so many people at once — grew into a long-term political one. Greece was reeling from a crippling economic crisis. The influx added to anger against established political parties, fueling the rise of once-fringe populist forces. EU nations fought over sharing responsibility for asylum seekers. The bloc's unity cracked as some member states flatly refused to take migrants. Anti-migration voices calling for closed borders became louder. Today, illegal migration is down across Europe While illegal migration to Greece has fluctuated, numbers are nowhere near 2015-16 figures, according to the International Organization for Migration. Smugglers adapted to heightened surveillance, shifting to more dangerous routes. Overall, irregular EU border crossings decreased by nearly 40% last year and continue to fall, according to EU border and coast guard agency Frontex. That hasn't stopped politicians from focusing on — and sometimes fearmongering over — migration. This month, the Dutch government collapsed after a populist far-right lawmaker withdrew his party's ministers over migration policy. In Greece, the new far-right migration minister has threatened rejected asylum seekers with jail time. A few miles from where Namjoyan now lives, in a forest of pine and olive trees, is a new EU-funded migrant center. It's one of the largest in Greece and can house up to 5,000 people. Greek officials denied an Associated Press request to visit. Its opening is blocked, for now, by court challenges. Some locals say the remote location seems deliberate — to keep migrants out of sight and out of mind. 'We don't believe such massive facilities are needed here. And the location is the worst possible – deep inside a forest,' said Panagiotis Christofas, mayor of Lesbos' capital, Mytilene. 'We're against it, and I believe that's the prevailing sentiment in our community.' The legacy of Lesbos Last year, EU nations approved a migration and asylum pact laying out common rules for the bloc's 27 countries on screening, asylum, detention and deportation of people trying to enter without authorization, among other things. 'The Lesbos crisis of 2015 was, in a way, the birth certificate of the European migration and asylum policy,' Margaritis Schinas, a former European Commission vice president and a chief pact architect, told AP. He said that after years of fruitless negotiations, he's proud of the landmark compromise. 'We didn't have a system,' Schinas said. 'Europe's gates had been crashed.' The deal, endorsed by the United Nations refugee agency, takes effect next year. Critics say it made concessions to rights organizations say it will increase detention and erode the right to seek asylum. Some organizations also criticize the 'externalization' of EU border management — agreements with countries across the Mediterranean to aggressively patrol their coasts and hold migrants back in exchange for financial assistance. The deals have expanded, from Turkey to the Middle East and acrossAfrica. Human rights groups say autocratic governments are pocketing billions and often subject the displaced to appalling conditions. Lesbos still sees some migrants arrive Lesbos' 80,000 residents look back at the 2015 crisis with mixed feelings. Fisherman Stratos Valamios saved some children. Others drowned just beyond his reach, their bodies still warm as he carried them to shore. 'What's changed from back then to now, 10 years on? Nothing,' he said. 'What I feel is anger — that such things can happen, that babies can drown.' Those who died crossing to Lesbos are buried in two cemeteries, their graves marked as 'unknown.' Tiny shoes and empty juice boxes with faded Turkish labels can still be found on the northern coast. So can black doughnut-shaped inner tubes, given by smugglers as crude life preservers for children. At Moria, a refugee camp destroyed by fire in 2020, children's drawings remain on gutted building walls. Migrants still arrive, and sometimes die, on these shores. Lesbos began to adapt to a quieter, more measured flow of newcomers. Efi Latsoudi, who runs a network helping migrants learn Greek and find jobs, hopes Lesbos' tradition of helping outsiders in need will outlast national policies. 'The way things are developing, it's not friendly for newcomers to integrate into Greek society,' Latsoudi said. 'We need to do something. ... I believe there is hope.' ___