European Union

An EP survey of EU citizens aged 16-30 shows social media is their main information source, and that the majority are also aware of the risks of online disinformation.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Those paying attention have seen this coming for years.

Britain does not have enough skilled workers to meet Labour’s ambitious target of building 1.5 million homes over the next five years.

This stark reality was highlighted on the front page of The Independent on 17 February 2025, yet Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner insists it’s no excuse. But excuses are irrelevant – facts remain facts.

Post-Brexit and post-Covid, Britain is suffering a chronic shortage of both skills and workers.

The construction sector is no exception.

Without a sufficient workforce, housing plans remain just that – plans. This is precisely why Britain now relies on millions of migrant workers to fill gaps in industries ranging from healthcare to agriculture and, crucially, construction.

The truth is, this crisis was avoidable.

When Britain was part of the EU, workers from our own continent could travel freely to meet labour demand. This fluid workforce ensured industries had the people they needed, when they needed them. But Brexit shattered that dynamic.

Now, in a desperate scramble to plug the gaps, the government – whether Tory or Labour – is handing out work visas to hundreds of thousands of people from countries thousands of miles away, including India, the Philippines, and Nigeria.

Yet, even with these efforts, it’s still not enough.

The result? A nation unable to house its people, spiralling construction costs, and projects stalled due to workforce shortages. This is the tangible cost of Brexit.

Had we remained in the EU, Britain wouldn’t be in this predicament.

European builders, engineers, and tradespeople who once came and went with ease are now entangled in red tape – or simply staying away. And with them, the possibility of meeting Britain’s housing targets disappears.

This isn’t an abstract issue.

The housing shortage is worsening the cost-of-living crisis, pushing homeownership further out of reach for millions, and deepening social inequality.

1.5 million homes aren’t just a political talking point – they are a necessity for a functioning, fair society.

There is a solution, but neither major party has the courage to embrace it.

Eventually, a government with foresight will emerge – one that understands the need to reverse the damage and bring Britain back to economic and social sanity.

That means rejoining the EU.

Britain doesn’t have to suffer needlessly when the remedy is clear. It’s only a matter of time before the electorate demands it.

• Join the discussion about this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky
• Related video: Why Britain needs migrants

• Migrants are a boon, not a burden: BBC report from 2021 on post-Brexit shortage of construction workers



• • • Post Brexit blues: Video report from 2021 on the shortage of construction workers



The post Britain’s housing crisis: Another Brexit disaster appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

A vote for Brexit was a vote for Putin.

Since the 2016 EU referendum, evidence has mounted that Russian interference helped secure the narrow ‘Leave’ victory.

By weakening the EU and sowing division, Brexit played into Vladimir Putin’s hands while delivering no tangible benefits to Britain.

Putin has long viewed the collapse of the Soviet Union as a “major geopolitical disaster” and has consistently sought to weaken the EU while restoring Russian influence over former Soviet states.

Brexit was a significant strategic win for Moscow.

 RUSSIA’S COVERT INFLUENCE

Reports from multiple sources, including The Guardian, The Times, and the UK Parliament, revealed that Russian-backed social media accounts posted tens of thousands of messages in the days leading up to the Brexit vote, overwhelmingly promoting Leave.

Research by Swansea University and the University of California, Berkeley, found that over 150,000 Russian-linked accounts suddenly pivoted to Brexit-related content, influencing millions of voters.

The UK Parliament’s Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee confirmed that these efforts aimed to increase tensions and undermine Britain’s democratic process. Committee chair Damian Collins MP warned this was likely “just the tip of the iceberg.”

Despite these findings, the British government repeatedly refused to launch a full-scale investigation.

Even after the Russia Report was published in 2020 by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, confirming systemic Russian interference in UK politics, no meaningful action was taken.

 THE UK’S COMPLICITY

Successive UK governments have ignored the growing threat of Russian influence.

Oligarchs with Kremlin ties poured millions into British politics, particularly the Conservative Party, turning London into a hub for Russian money laundering – earning the nickname ‘Londongrad.’

Cross-party MPs, including Labour’s Chris Bryant and Green Party’s Caroline Lucas, repeatedly warned of the dangers, but their concerns were dismissed.

Even after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the UK was slow to freeze Russian assets and sanction oligarchs.

A new Labour government took power in 2024, raising hopes for a fresh approach.

However, despite mounting evidence that Russia played a key role in fueling and funding Brexit, Labour has not committed to investigating alleged interference in the EU referendum or other democratic processes in the UK.

 A WIDER RUSSIAN PLAYBOOK

Russia’s tactics in Britain were not isolated.

While many former Soviet bloc countries remain staunchly pro-EU and wary of Russian influence, some, notably Hungary and Slovakia, have taken a different path.

Under Viktor Orbán, Hungary has repeatedly blocked EU sanctions against Russia, maintained close economic ties with Moscow, and adopted a pro-Kremlin stance on key issues, including energy dependence.

Slovakia, following the election of Robert Fico as Prime Minister, has also signaled a more Russia-friendly position, reducing support for Ukraine and opposing further European intervention.

These shifts pose a challenge for EU unity, as Putin seeks to exploit internal divisions, weakening the bloc’s collective response to Russian aggression.

Moscow has also engaged in cyberwarfare, disinformation campaigns, and financial backing for far-right and nationalist parties across Europe to weaken EU cohesion.

By 2017, Russia had amassed 2,500 troops near Latvia and Estonia, heightening fears of aggression.

These concerns escalated further in 2022 when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, despite having repeatedly denied any such plans.

 THE TRUMP FACTOR AND NEED FOR STRONGER EU TIES

The situation has become even more precarious with the return of Donald Trump to the US presidency in 2025.

Trump has made statements appearing to favour Putin over Europe, openly criticised NATO, and questioned US commitment to European security.

His wavering stance on supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression has emboldened Moscow and left Europe more vulnerable.

With the US no longer a reliable ally, the UK’s alliance with the EU is more crucial than ever.

The EU remains the strongest force resisting Putin’s expansionism, coordinating sanctions, military aid, and humanitarian support for Ukraine.

Britain must recognise that its interests align with Europe – not with an increasingly isolationist and unpredictable US administration.

 LEGAL CHALLENGES AND POLITICAL INACTION

Frustrated by the government’s failure to act, in March 2022 cross-party MPs Ben Bradshaw (Labour), Caroline Lucas (Green), and Alyn Smith (SNP) took the case to the  European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

They argued that the UK’s refusal to investigate Russian interference violated democratic rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The UK government was given until April 2023 to respond. Predictably, it downplayed the allegations and offered no substantive counter-investigation.

The refusal to engage reflects a deeper unwillingness to acknowledge that Brexit – hailed as a victory for sovereignty – was, in part, manipulated by a hostile foreign power.

The ECHR ruling has yet to be delivered, and there is no indication of when it will be.

However, when it does, it is expected to be major news. The case remains a key moment in determining accountability for foreign interference in UK democracy.

 THE PATH FORWARD

Brexit was a strategic success for Putin but a devastating blow to Britain.

The economic, political, and social consequences are increasingly clear. The UK’s international standing has diminished, businesses have struggled, and trade with Europe has suffered.

But there is a way forward. The UK must:

• Acknowledge and investigate Russian interference in Brexit and UK politics.
• Strengthen ties with the EU, recognising the benefits of European collaboration in trade, security, and global influence – in other words, being back IN the the EU.
• Expose and counter Russian influence, ensuring that UK democracy is not for sale to the highest bidder.

The ultimate repudiation of Putin’s interference would be a national commitment to rebuilding Britain’s European partnerships – including rejoining the EU, at least in the longer term.

The damage caused by Brexit is not irreversible, but time is running out.

The UK must choose: stand with its European allies or remain a pawn in Putin’s geopolitical ambitions.

The clock is ticking.

• Join the discussion about this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky 
• Earlier versions of this post were published in February 2024, February 2023, March 2022, February 2022, and November 2017.
• Related article from 2013: Latvia: From Soviet Union to European Union

• Related video – Putin’s interference in UK democracy, as explained by British MPs (will be updated later in 2025)



• Related video: Boris Johnson and the Russian connection



• Related video: Message for Russian people



• Related video: Stanley Johnson (Boris Johnson’s father) and the Russian Connection

The post How Brexit played into Putin’s hands appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Committee meetings

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

During her official visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories, EP President Metsola was the first European leader to enter Gaza in more than a decade.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

During her official visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories, EP President Metsola was the first European leader to enter Gaza in more than a decade.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Check out our timeline for an overview of how the EU and the European Parliament continue to support Ukraine in 2025.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

What will happen if the US imposes extra tariffs on EU products? Find out the facts about EU-US trade and what the EU could do in case of a trade war.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Brexiters claim the EU is run by unelected bureaucrats. It’s untrue.

The EU is a democracy, run by elected politicians.

By comparison, the UK seems more like a quasi-democracy, with unelected decision-makers and undemocratic practises that would be considered despotic by EU standards.

The UK Parliament consists of 1,481 members across the Commons and Lords. However, while all 650 MPs in the House of Commons are elected, the remaining 831 members of the House of Lords were appointed and not elected.

Our Parliament has more unelected members than elected.

The number of members of the Lords often fluctuates due to new appointments, leave of absence, and disqualification. Voters have no say in this process.

The House of Lords is the upper chamber of the UK Parliament. It plays a key role in the legislative process, scrutinising government actions, and providing expertise on policy and law.

Although it has limited power compared to the elected House of Commons, for a Bill to become law it must be approved by both the Commons and the Lords except in certain circumstances. Ultimately, however, the elected Commons has the final say over legislation.

The House of Lords is the only upper house of any two-chamber parliament in the world to be larger than its lower house.*

[*Source: Alan Siaroff, Comparing Political Regimes]

By stark contrast, the European Parliament has 720 members, all elected.

Just look at other aspects of so-called British ‘democracy’ that would be considered alien in the EU:

 We have a legislative system whereby most laws are made by Statutory Instruments, drafted by the Civil Service, which cannot be amended by Parliament and most of which become law automatically, without a Parliamentary vote.

We have governments that can bypass Parliament with the use – and abuse – of arcane and ancient Royal Prerogatives and Henry VIII clauses.

We have an old-fashioned voting system of first-past-the-post resulting in governments that most people didn’t vote for. (In European Parliament elections, voting is by proportional representation).

We had a Prime Minister who could (until it was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court) close down Parliament for an extended period at his will and without Parliamentary approval.

We had a Prime Minister who attempted to initiate Brexit without Parliamentary authority and spent considerable sums of public money in litigation defending her “right” to do so.

We had a government that gave lucrative contracts to their friends, bypassing usual procurement procedures and public accountability.

We had a referendum in which two out of the four nations of the United Kingdom, along with Gibraltar, voted strongly against Brexit, but the UK government went ahead with it anyway.

We have an unelected head of state (although the King has no real power to intervene on important issues).

None of these undemocratic situations would be acceptable in the EU.

But how many people in Britain truly know that the EU is a democracy?

For years, Brexit politicians and papers have been selling us the blatant lie that the EU is undemocratic, even a “dictatorship” and run by unelected bureaucrats.

Let me take this opportunity to explain why that is not the case.

EU MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS

In the EU, democratic governance is the number one requirement of European Union membership.

In 1962, the year after Britain first applied to join the EEC, Spain also applied.

The country was then governed by authoritarian dictator, Francisco Franco. Spain’s membership application was flatly and unanimously rejected by all members of the European Community.

The reason? Because Spain wasn’t a democracy.

Indeed, if the UK was applying to join the EU now, recent events could present questions over the validity of our application and whether our democratic governance is currently robust enough.

Remember, recent Tory governments wanted to scrap our Human Rights Act and also opposed the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Conservative leaders have  also threatened to leave the European Convention on Human Rights. The current Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, has said she was willing to consider leaving the Convention if she became Prime Minister.

Such a move would bar us from joining the EU, where a commitment to human rights is a strict membership requirement.

Before becoming a member of the EU, an applicant country must demonstrate that it has a stable government guaranteeing:

• Democracy
• The rule of law
• Human rights
• Respect for and protection of minorities
• The existence of a functioning market economy
• The capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union

Most countries that applied to join the EU did not meet these strict membership requirements and so they needed many years to prepare for the process before their application could be accepted.

NOTE: The UK’s unelected House of Lords may be a barrier to the UK being accepted as an EU member if we apply to re-join. We may have got away with having an unelected second chamber when we first joined in 1973, but there is a question mark over whether our application would be successful again without deep constitutional reforms in the UK. 

 EU MEMBERS

Contrary to what many people in Britain understand, the EU is a democracy, democratically run by its members.

These comprise the democratically elected governments and Parliaments of EU member states, alongside the directly elected European Parliament.

All the treaties of the EU, upon which all EU laws must be compatible, and any new countries applying to join the EU, must be unanimously and democratically agreed by all the national parliaments of every EU member state, however large or small.

In some EU countries, according to their national constitutions, agreement must also be obtained by regional parliaments and national referendums.

All the EEC/EU treaties since Britain joined the European Community in 1973 were fully debated and democratically passed by our Parliament in Westminster.

Not once were any changes to our EU membership imposed upon us, and neither could they be, as the EU is a democracy.

In addition, every EU country has a veto on any treaty changes or any new country joining.

(Compare that to our referendum of 2016, when a majority of citizens in Scotland and Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, but it made no difference.)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

The European Parliament is the EU’s law-making body, alongside the EU Council, also called the Council of Ministers, which comprises the departmental ministers of democratically elected governments of every EU country.

The Parliament is directly elected every five years by citizens in all EU countries. The latest European elections were held in June 2024.

There are 720 MEPs (we used to have 73 MEPs from the UK representing us in Europe; alas, no more).

Each European country is proportionally represented in the Parliament according to their size of population.

EU laws can only be passed by the European Parliament in concert with the Council of Ministers.

The Council shares law making and budgetary powers with the European Parliament. When voting on proposed EU laws, its meetings must be public.

Alongside the Council, the European Parliament has the democratic power to accept, amend or reject proposed laws and regulations.

According to extensive research at the time by VoteWatch Europe, over 97% of adopted EU laws in the 12 years to 2016 were supported by the UK.

There are proposals to give the European Parliament new powers to directly initiate legislation.

 THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

The European Commission is the servant of the EU, and not its master. Ultimately, the Commission is beholden to the European Parliament, and not the other way around.

The candidates for Commission President are proposed by a qualified majority of the European Council, which comprises the Prime Ministers or Heads of States of EU countries, taking account of the latest European elections.

Similarly, the Commission is composed of one member from each member state “suggested” by the national governments of each member state, but elected by a qualified majority of the European Council.

The Commission President must then be elected by an absolute majority of all MEPs (i.e. over 50% of them).

Indeed, Ursula von der Leyen could only become Commission President – for a second term – with the democratic backing of over half of ALL MEPs.

Each proposed Commissioner must also be democratically approved by the European Parliament in a strict vetting process. The Parliament has the democratic power to reject candidate Commissioners – as two were in in 2019.

After the 2024 European Parliament elections, European Parliament’s hearings, held in November 2024, involved rigorous evaluations of the Commissioners-designate. While no nominees were outright rejected, several faced intense scrutiny and challenges during their hearings.

The Parliament also has the democratic power to sack the entire Commission at any time during its five-year tenure.

The Commission is responsible for implementing the democratic decisions of the EU, upholding and enforcing democratically passed EU laws and treaties, and managing the day-to-day business of the EU.

The Commission also proposes new laws, but they only do this in close collaboration with the European Parliament and Council of Ministers, as only the Parliament and Council can pass laws.

The Commission has zero power to pass any laws.

Before the Commission proposes new laws, it prepares ‘Impact Assessments’ which set out the advantages and disadvantages of possible policy options.

The Commission then consults interested parties such as non-governmental organisations, local authorities and representatives of industry and civil society. Groups of experts also give advice on technical issues.

In this way, the Commission ensures that legislative proposals correspond to the needs of those most concerned and avoids unnecessary red tape.

Citizens, businesses and organisations also participate in the consultation procedure. National parliaments can also formally express their reservations if they feel that it would be better to deal with an issue at national rather than EU level.

 THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

The European Council consists of the democratically elected leaders of each EU country – their Prime Ministers and Presidents. It is the EU’s supreme political authority.

The Council does not negotiate or adopt EU laws, but it does democratically set the political goals and priorities of the European Union, including the policy agenda of the Commission.

The Council also democratically chooses candidates for the post of Commission President, which the European Parliament must then elect with an absolute majority of MEPs.

The Council President reports to the European Parliament.

UK MEMBERSHIP OF THE EU

During our membership, Britain democratically helped to run and rule the EU, and not the other way around. Whatever the EU is and has become, Britain helped to create it.

Indeed, the EU can become whatever all its members unanimously agree it can become. But of course, that only applies to EU members, and not to ex-members.

Outside of the EU, Britain can only watch as democratic decisions about our continent are decided without us, even though those decisions affect us just as much, whether we are a member or not.

Leaving the EU has meant a loss of sovereignty. We no longer have a say, votes, and vetoes on the running and future direction of Europe.

• Join the discussion about this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky
• Related video: The BBC got it wrong, so this video explains how the EU functions as a democracy



• Related video: Why the UK joined the EU – and why we might join again for the same reasons

• Related video: Why Brexit is a colossal mistake, by former Prime Minister Sir John Major



The post The EU is more democratic than the UK appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The Rwandan government must withdraw its troops from the Democratic Republic of Congo’s territory and cease cooperation with the M23 rebels, Parliament says.
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

The Rwandan government must withdraw its troops from the Democratic Republic of Congo’s territory and cease cooperation with the M23 rebels, Parliament says.
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Thursday, the European Parliament adopted human rights resolutions on Türkiye, Nicaragua and Nigeria.
Subcommittee on Human Rights

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On Thursday, the European Parliament adopted human rights resolutions on Türkiye, Nicaragua and Nigeria.
Subcommittee on Human Rights

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

MEPs call on the international community to join the boycott of Georgia’s self-proclaimed authorities, who they accuse of eroding the country’s democracy and cracking down on dissents.
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

MEPs call on the international community to join the boycott of Georgia’s self-proclaimed authorities, who they accuse of eroding the country’s democracy and cracking down on dissents.
Committee on Foreign Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

.

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

On 18 February, the Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE) will hold an exchange of views with Robert DE GROOT, Vice-President of the European Investment Bank (EIB), on the Bank’s role in strengthening European defence. This discussion is particularly timely after the recent informal European Council retreat discussions on the need to enhance the financing of European Defence. ...
SEDE Members will also have an exchange of views with Marcos PERESTRELLO, President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA). This item will be held jointly with the Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (DNAT).
Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

After 14 years of Conservative rule, many of us longed for real change – a fresh start, a true alternative to austerity, inequality, and broken promises.

But now that Labour is in government, it doesn’t feel like Labour at all. It feels more Tory.

And I’m not the only one saying this. Many Labour voters, supporters, and even Labour MPs are openly questioning the party’s direction.

Just look at Labour’s policies since taking office – many wouldn’t have looked out of place in the Conservative government of just a year ago.

So, let’s examine how a more traditional Labour government might have tackled these issues differently.

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEES

– Current Labour Policy: Banning UK citizenship for refugees arriving via ‘dangerous routes’.

– Traditional Labour Alternative: A humane, fair approach – establishing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, investing in faster processing systems, and working with international partners to manage migration effectively.

Instead of punishing refugees, Labour could crack down on traffickers and exploitative employers.

WINTER FUEL ALLOWANCE CUTS

– Current Labour Policy: Removing the Winter Fuel Allowance from most pensioners to save £1.5 billion.

– Traditional Labour Alternative: Instead of cutting support, Labour could increase winter assistance, funded by a windfall tax on energy companies’ record profits.

NHS RECRUITMENT AND MIGRANT DOCTORS

– Current Labour Policy: Criticising NHS reliance on overseas doctors, implying a need for more UK-based recruitment.

– Traditional Labour Alternative: Instead of blaming NHS bosses, Labour should invest in training more UK doctors and nurses while improving pay and conditions to retain existing staff.

A Labour government should welcome migrant healthcare workers, ensuring they receive fair pay and working conditions.

BENEFIT CLAIMANTS AND BANK ACCOUNT MONITORING

– Current Labour Policy: Labour plans to monitor bank accounts of benefit claimants to detect fraud.

– Traditional Labour Alternative: Instead of targeting the poorest, Labour could focus on corporate tax evasion, which costs the UK billions more than benefit fraud.

A fair benefits system should be supportive, not punitive.

TAXATION AND FISCAL POLICY

– Current Labour Policy: Large National Insurance tax hikes, impacting workers and businesses.

– Traditional Labour Alternative: Tax wealth, not work – higher taxes on corporations, high earners, and windfall profits, instead of squeezing working people.

A progressive tax system could fund public services without burdening low- and middle-income earners.

INHERITANCE TAX ON FARMS

– Current Labour Policy: Removing inheritance tax exemptions for farms worth over £1 million.

– Traditional Labour Alternative: Instead of a blanket tax increase, Labour could target corporate farms and landowners, while protecting small family farms from financial hardship.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

– Current Labour Policy: Labour has launched Great British Energy (GBE), a publicly owned clean energy company, and pledged home insulation improvements via the Warm Homes Plan.

However, green investment funding has been cut from £28bn to £14bn, and Labour is expanding nuclear power. Keir Starmer has also indicated he wants to go-ahead with a giant new oilfield, Rosebank off Shetland, continuing Conservative energy policies.

– Traditional Labour Alternative: Labour should reverse green investment cuts, expand public ownership of renewable energy, and prioritise fast-deploying renewables over costly and environmentally unfriendly nuclear projects and the Rosebank oilfield.

LAW AND ORDER POLICIES

– Current Labour Policy: More police recruitment and expanded use of facial recognition surveillance.

– Traditional Labour Alternative: Tackle the root causes of crime – invest in youth services, education, and job creation.

Instead of increased surveillance, Labour should prioritise community policing and police accountability.

PUBLIC SECTOR PAY AND SERVICES

– Current Labour Policy: Labour has announced above-inflation pay rises for some public sector workers, including 5.5% for NHS staff and a 22% pay rise for junior doctors over two years.

– Traditional Labour Alternative: While better than nothing, true Labour values would ensure all public sector wages rise in line with inflation – funded by progressive taxation, not spending cuts elsewhere.

EDUCATION REFORMS

– Current Labour Policy: Labour plans to recruit 6,500 new teachers, modernise the curriculum, and ensure all new teachers are qualified.

– Traditional Labour Alternative: All well and good, but Labour should also increase school funding, reduce class sizes, and abolish tuition fees for higher education.

Rather than focusing on standardisation, Labour should prioritise investment and support to help all students succeed.

BREXIT – THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

– Current Labour Policy: Labour rules out rejoining the EU, Single Market, or customs union, despite Brexit’s role in low growth, inflation, and workforce shortages – contributing to the £22bn economic “black hole”.

– Traditional Labour Alternative: Every Labour Prime Minister since 1957 has supported EU membership – except Keir Starmer.

Labour should face reality. If Starmer started making the case for rejoining, Labour could boost economic growth and help to secure a second term.

A MORE TRADITIONAL LABOUR APPROACH

A Labour government true to its values would:

Increase taxes on wealth and corporations, not on workers.
Invest in public services instead of cutting support.
Ensure a humane, fair approach to refugees and benefits claimants.
Properly fund public sector pay and green investment.
Tackle corporate tax avoidance instead of bank surveillance on the poor.
Support EU membership, just like every Labour Prime Minister before Starmer.

Instead, Starmer’s Labour is adopting fiscally conservative, tougher-on-migrants, tougher-on-welfare policies while avoiding the Brexit debate – mirroring recent Tory approaches.

This isn’t New Labour. This isn’t even true Labour.

• Join the discussion about this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky
• Related video: Keir Starmer stood for the Labour leadership promoting migration and Free Movement of People – but once he became leader, changed his mind.



• Related article: Labour’s reform-style rhetoric against migration simply won’t work

 

The post New Labour? This isn’t even true Labour appeared first on Ideas on Europe.