As the UK prime minister opens up a debate over Britain’s future relationship with Europe, a new report argues that becoming a member of the EU should be the UK’s medium-term goal.
Being part of the EU is necessary to protect the UK’s prosperity, security and democracy, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) argues.
The stark message calling for full EU membership by the leading think tank, which has close links to Labour, is bolstered by new polling, commissioned by IPPR and Persuasion UK, which found that a majority in the UK backs EU membership across stress test of tough trade-offs.
…
The research argues that the assumptions underpinning the UK’s foreign and economic policy have broken down in the face of Russian aggression, an unpredictable United States and growing economic coercion from China.
…
The report welcomes the shift towards a wider debate about the UK’s relationship with Europe. It argues that this must now go beyond piece-by-piece negotiations over trade and regulation. Instead, the UK should begin a sustained political rebuild with Europe, with the medium-term objective of securing a democratic mandate for EU membership.
New polling commissioned by IPPR and Persuasion UK finds that a majority of voters want a closer relationship with Europe. More than half (52 per cent) want to join the EU, compared with less than a third (29 per cent) who want to stay out. Among those expressing a view, that is a 64–36 split, leaving 10 per cent who ‘don’t know’ and nine per cent opting out of voting. Even among Labour voters considering switching to Reform, 54 per cent want to join the EU, compared with 36 per cent who want to stay out.
…
The research suggests that “staying as we are” also carries political risk. When voters were presented with different approaches to Europe, maintaining the UK’s current relationship with the EU appeared to be the least popular option. While voters differ over exactly what a closer relationship should look like, the findings point to a broad appetite for change rather than simply preserving the post-Brexit status quo.
…
In an effort to move the conversation into 2026, IPPR says the government should develop a new Europe strategy, which should include:
- Working with the EU to deliver continent-wide industrial policy, under which the UK would open its public procurement market to European firms in return for the EU doing the same for the UK
- Creating a European Defence Alliance, with the UK offering capabilities where Europe remains heavily dependent on the US, including satellite communications
- Once consent is stronger, gaining a mandate to join the EU, either through a fresh referendum or a clear manifesto commitment
…
I mean it seems like all modern neoliberal governments are crumbling under the weight of the fucking Boomer generation living so much longer than anyone expected. There was a smaller, but still significant baby boom in Europe as well.
We are all carrying a generation that was larger than any other, and had quick political impact due to that, and in some places still holds most of the political power.
Their stubbornness and selfishness is literally what is allowing conservative groups to grind the gears of government to a halt. They have seen the ways to break government and used them aggressively, all over the world.
France’s main trouble is with pensions and they had one of the biggest baby booms in Europe.
The reality is that when the Boomers were young there were some massive breakthroughs in medicine, especially in terms of heart health and care. We went from a roughly 60 year average lifespan in the 40s and 50s to 70 in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and have been just pushing 80+ ever since. The programs as they were designed were never designed for people who would live this long and take up this much pension (or social security) money. The Boomers themselves seem to feel entitled to it despite it coming straight from the pockets of their children.
I am in total agreement. The trouble is there seems to be no alternative that is likely to take power in the UK just the same never changing uniparty. Different faces same outcomes, higher taxes, worse services, more surveillance and greater limitations on protest and expression
It reminds me of the potent idea that Adam Curtis explored in his film series The Power of Nightmares, in which he posited that modern governments and politicians had stopped trying to offer a dream of a better world, but instead started offering nightmares, boogeymen, things to fear. Instead of making a better world, they all turned towards creating nightmares for their populace to “need” them for. They are part of democracies that have become (or started as and continue to be, as is with the case of the USA) morally bankrupt with little more than lip service to actual democracy. Since they can’t offer a dream of something better, they must offer a nightmare to make us afraid and need them as a protective figure.
Left keywords, but comment thrust is about how old people should work longer or die. This is just a youth-targeted argument for reducing government benefits because it will supposedly lower your taxes. It’s the exact one the neoliberals in France used to promote their retirement age change, which was vociferously opposed by the left.
That’s not what I suggested was the solution at all. My point was simply the systems as they were designed to never carry this much weight because no one predicted the massive leaps in life expectancy in under a 100 years. The point rather is that the systems are broken, and it’s not the fault of the people who are living longer. It’s the fault of the people (generally politicians and older folks who benefit from things as they are) who refuse to change the systems to adapt to a modern world where people do live longer, and the only way to functionally do that is to tax the wealthy appropriately. That’s a nonstarter with most politicians, sadly. Further, it can’t really be denied that Boomers did vote for these policies that kept their taxes low and shunted the burden to the youth.