LONDON – Nick Thomas-Symonds, Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, have you seen the Observer front page today saying that the UK should rejoin the EU? Do you agree with that?
“I don’t think we should be looking backwards. I think we should be looking forward. This is the case I’ve been making before I got this job, when I was shadowing it in opposition and indeed in government. Now, it is absolutely true that the world has changed since Brexit, but I don’t believe our post-Brexit structures are, in any sense, designed to deal with the problems of today. We have a security, political and economic context that has changed. We have a land war in Europe. We have war in the Middle East, and we have global overcapacity in strategic sectors, resulting from Chinese overproduction. Steel is an example of that, where we need to find a solution. I think working with Maros Sefcovic, with whom I have a really positive, constructive relationship. He and I have worked extremely well together over what is the best part of two years now, and I think we’ve done really important work. I think nobody can say the UK-EU relationship is in a much more positive place. Nobody can say that what we’ve already achieved isn’t significant, from the security and defence partnership last year, which obviously complements our membership of NATO, to also the reaccession to Erasmus+, which I’m so proud of. Just before Christmas, over 100,000 mostly young Brits — I say young Brits, but it is open for adult learners as well, and indeed Europeans too — but also what Maros and I promised before Christmas we will achieve by this year’s summit around the food and drink agreement, linkage around emissions trading systems, the youth experience. These are all really significant things that are going to make a contribution, a huge contribution, not just economically, but to the opportunities for people as well. But this is the point really to make that’s so important. At the moment, there is a real window of opportunity that exists now to go further, to make this relationship a durable one for the future, to the UK-EU, the new strategic partnership, if you like, can deliver security, prosperity and resilience. And I’ve thought about this a great deal. I’ve spoken about it as well in speeches that I’ve made. I think it’s based on fundamentally shared values. I think Roberta Metsola, the President of the European Parliament, put it best when she talks about, same, you know, different ships, yes, but in the same convoy. And we have the values of democracy, of open market rules-based approach to trade, but also that trade is based on, you know, a significant and really important set of labour rights, on social standards, environmental standards, climate standards. So fundamentally, our values are the same. I also think European security, of course, we share the same security interests and priorities. We also know that in defence terms there has been a shift in the burden, that Europe has to stand on its own two feet. Clearly an EU-UK partnership will drive that. But also, our industrial bases are highly integrated, with billions of pounds worth of trade between them. And I think we’re at the point where those shared values, the shared challenges that exist, as I say, but now we’ve got to turn that into reality going forward. And that’s exactly the work that I will be leading, and that’s why I think this is the opportunity for that step up in ambition.”
I interviewed Sadiq Khan a few weeks ago, and he told me, actually, we should campaign. I mean, at the next general election, we as a Labour Party, we should campaign to rejoin the EU because, you know, it’s also something that will be beneficial for our party and our leadership.
“I don’t think we should be going back to the debates of the past, but I certainly believe that the UK-EU relationship, what this government has achieved and what it will achieve, absolutely that’s going to be an election issue. And look at the difference. I don’t think Nigel Farage believes in having any trading relationship with the EU at all. And indeed, when I’ve spoken about how the food and drink agreement is going to take away costs from businesses, what is it? Around a million export health certificates, that’s £200 a time, have had to be paid for by British businesses since 2023. I’ve walked around on the media with an export health certificate, 20-odd pages, 56 wet stamps. Now I am saying, when they take all that red tape and costs away from businesses, Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch want to put it all back. But then you look at Zack Polansky, who on the one hand is telling you that the Green Party wants a closer EU relationship, but on the other is telling you that the fundamental security alliance, that’s the foundation stone of European security, NATO, he apparently wants to leave. So it makes no sense whatsoever. I’m not sure he’s realised that 23 of the EU member states are also members of NATO. So, I mean, that’s just complete fantasy, to be fair. So absolutely, this is going to be a central issue. And I am going to be saying when this year we will have the UK-EU summit, the annual summit. We will have a bill in Parliament. Well, I am going to be making the case for bearing down on energy bills, bearing down on food bills, giving frontline law enforcement greater tools so that there is nowhere on our continent for criminals to hide, the jobs that we will be creating, not least on renewables in the North Sea. So I’m going to be talking about jobs, bills and borders. If we want to see a debate in Parliament where we are the ones delivering, highlighting and showing how the Prime Minister’s work on the international stage, the work that I and many others across government have done, is delivering for people here at home, versus the opposition parties that are just a combination of, frankly, fantasy ideology and a lack of seriousness, then we will welcome that debate.”
But, I mean, how far can you go? I mean, the thing is, of course, you know, also the Prime Minister said we have, I mean, we would like to have more access to the single market, right, to the EU single market. So how far can you go? I mean, also, as you know, as a minister like you know, can we imagine, like a sort of Swiss deal or Norway deal?
“Too often in this debate, in many years of taking part in it now, I’ve always given other countries as apparent models what the UK relationship should be. The truth is, we have, at the moment, a UK model, and what we will always have is a distinct UK-EU model, because of the very distinct nature of our relationship with the European Union. I mean, President Metsola said we should think outside the box about the relationship, and I think given the extreme challenges that we face, that’s exactly right. That’s why we’re having that discussion about how we work together on economic security and resilience. I think the first point really does come to that around security, whether that is hard-edge security and working together on defence, on working together on the return of land war in Europe, war in Ukraine. It means food security. That’s why the food and drink agreement is so important. Energy security, which is why the talks Maros Sefcovic and I are kicking off in terms of UK participation in the internal electricity market, is so important. But it also has to mean industrial security. And that is why the Prime Minister has talked about this. I’ve talked about this, the Chancellor has talked about this. It is now about looking at those areas, those sectors, where the UK and the EU following common standards is in our mutual interest and our mutual benefit. This is an extraordinarily deep and wide trading relationship, and reducing those trade barriers in key sectors is absolutely critical for resilience, particularly when we face the same economic challenges. But let me also say this. This argument around alignment, alignment, as I’ve said, is not a dirty word. You know, I have been making, and will be making, the case this year that the United Kingdom is taking a sovereign choice to align with European rules, and it is so important because it means that we can reduce business costs, and it means easier trade on both sides of the Channel. It is in the interest of resilience across our continent.”
Are you talking about dynamic alignment?
“Yes, absolutely, and this is a debate that we will be entering into here in the United Kingdom, because it is crucial that we are saying this. I’m saying this to Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage: that it is in our economic interest to do it. It means red tape that is no longer necessary. It means cost for our exports that is no longer necessary. If you look at the post-Brexit position, there are thousands of businesses that simply just stopped trading with the EU. So it makes sense where it makes sense for us economically. That’s exactly what we will do.”
How crucial is it for the UK and the EU to get closer again? I’m asking also in terms of geopolitics, but also for the British and Europeans. In this particular world especially, we are seeing a new era of empires like the US, China, whatever. How crucial is it that the UK gets closer to the EU, or realigns with the EU?
“Look, the transatlantic relationship is always going to be critical, and is critical both now and in the future. But I have no doubt at all that the international political situation we face means that the UK and the EU are going to be closer together, and even closer still, and that is because, as I say, firstly, you have the shared values that we discussed a moment ago, but also the shared challenges, the fact that 10 years after the Brexit referendum, the world is a very different place, whether that is the return of land war in Europe with Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the war in the Middle East, but also the similar challenges we face in terms of together needing to deal with the global overcapacity in strategic sectors, but also resilience. We’ve seen what happened when we had the illegal invasion of Ukraine and what happened to global supply chains. We’ve seen it in recent weeks with the Iran conflict. Building that resilience together is critical for the UK and the EU, and I’ve no doubt the UK will become closer still in the next few years.”
Let’s talk about defence, because we know that the SAFE agreement didn’t go well. Actually, I’ve been told that Europeans, during the negotiations, concealed the fee for the UK until the very last moment. That said, there’s not going to be a second batch for SAFE. So what is the role of the UK now in this “Reset” for defence?
“Well, first and foremost, yes, the SAFE negotiations were disappointing in outcome. I’ve always said, though, that I would not sign up to things that did not represent value for money. But that said, the UK will obviously still have participation in SAFE up to 30% of the components, and that’s…”
But that’s not enough for the UK.
“Well, no, no, listen, we are open to it. Of course the door is open. I haven’t closed the door. If there is to be a second round of SAFE, certainly I have not closed the door. But you can’t say Britain is not doing well on defence procurement. I mean, look at what we’ve recently done in terms of jets with Turkey or frigates with Norway. You can see the work we’re doing with European and indeed NATO allies. In terms of the Ukraine loans, we’re very open as well to a discussion there in terms of UK participation. And in any event, we are absolutely — we’ve said, you know — the United Kingdom is fundamental to European security, and European security is fundamental to the UK. And you can look at it from NATO to the Joint Expeditionary Force. You know, I was in Estonia not long before the election to hear about the very important work — we call it the JEF, as you know — being done by the JEF. But you’ve also seen the leading role played by the Prime Minister in terms of the Coalition of the Willing regarding Ukraine. Only in recent weeks, the Prime Minister has co-chaired with President Macron in Paris the meeting looking at securing free navigational access for the Strait of Hormuz. So yes, it was disappointing on SAFE, but the fundamental nature of our security relationship is there fully.”
But how difficult is it to negotiate with the EU? Without the French, especially on defence, it would be much easier?
“Well, I think if you spoke to Maros Sefcovic and I, we would both, I’m sure, say that we are certainly tough negotiators with each other. But the other thing that we’ve always built is a good-faith relationship, and I think that is so important. It obviously means we’re not always going to agree. Maros has the member states to answer to, and has to go back to them to show that he’s got a good deal. I have the Prime Minister, I have Parliament, I have the British public that I have to show that I’ve got a good deal for. So of course it’s a tough negotiation. It wouldn’t be and shouldn’t be anything other than tough. Of course it is. But at the same time, the thing I think has changed is that we negotiate in good faith. And compare that to the days when previous Conservative governments were agreeing things and then going off and saying something completely different. You know, I remember, I think it was the former Northern Ireland Secretary, Brandon Lewis, getting up in Parliament saying he was going to break international law in a limited, specific way, agreeing arrangements for Northern Ireland, then claiming they didn’t understand them, claiming that they were never intended to implement them. Those days are gone, and they’re gone because they were damaging the British national interest. They were damaging our reputation on the international stage. They were damaging our ability to get the best outcome for Britain. And compare that to what this government has done, both in terms of its wider trade policy — you think of the free trade agreement with India — but also the progress we’ve made in the UK-EU relationship, which I think has been really important and significant so far. But as I say, we want to be more ambitious still.”
But how confident are you that there might be a good agreement before the next summit in June/July? I hear that the negotiations are not going really well, and the summit may not take place.
“Well, there will always be a lot of noise around this about how things are going, how things are not. I sometimes have a wry smile when I’m the one in the negotiating room, but I often have a wry smile about some of the commentary around it. The negotiations are going well, and in some places ahead of where I would expect them to be at the moment. That doesn’t mean that over the next few weeks we won’t get a lot more commentary and other things going on. That’s just the nature of it. I was a barrister and a mediator in a previous life, and while I’ve never been involved, I have to say, in a negotiation on behalf of nearly 70 million people before, I certainly have been involved in many negotiations. And I think when you get to the business end like this, this is where you get all these different suggestions from outside as to how it’s going, how it’s not, where the sticking points are. But I’m very, very used to all of that. Maros Sefcovic and I, when we met before Christmas and we agreed the reaccession to Erasmus+, which by the way is only in the last couple of weeks we finished the administrative steps for the British Council as a national agency, we also agreed, as I say, just before Christmas, to open the negotiations on participation in the internal electricity market. We also agreed that by the time of the 2026 summit — and by the way, we haven’t announced the date yet — we would complete the SPS agreement, i.e. the food and drink agreement, emissions trading system linkage and the youth experience scheme. So since then, of course, we are also looking at our ambitions for the future. But I’m very confident of a positive outcome from this summit. And some of the commentary is a bit off-theme in terms of how it’s going, because I think it’s been very positive.”
About youth mobility, are you still negotiating? Are you Brits going to move from your request, which is a cap on the number of people and the payment for the university fees?
“Look, the cap, the limit, was in the common understanding. It’s absolutely critical. I’ve always made that clear.”
Can you give an estimation of how much that should be, from your perspective?
“Well, it will be subject to negotiation, but we’ve always said the scheme would be in the context of the UK’s 13 existing schemes. But on the second issue, the home fees were not part of the common understanding and were expressly ruled out as part of this package. So the British position hasn’t changed on that from what it was in May last year.”
So you’re not changing the position. Do you still think that a compromise may be found?
“I think we will certainly get there in terms of a summit package. But the reason that home fees were ruled out before the summit last year, the reason they did not form part of the common understanding package, was because they would fundamentally disrupt the balance of that package. That’s why they weren’t agreed at the time, and that’s why we have not changed that position. I mean, I recognise that UK universities are already under significant financial pressure. So you know, you’d be left with a situation of trying to justify to them and the wider public why EU students should get home fee status unless they came with much wider and much more tangible benefits for the UK. So that’s where we are.”
Do you think that EU officials have understood the dangerous reality we are in? Do you think that maybe the EU should show more flexibility, given the context?
“Well, in my negotiations with Maros Sefcovic, we’ve always understood, both of us, the changing political context. I think that also, if you look at what Roberta Metsola recently said about thinking outside the box, if you look at the Prime Minister’s discussions, whether that’s with European leaders or indeed the President online, I think you can see coming through very strongly an understanding of the international context and the changing international context we face. But secondly, the need to think differently. And I think you can see that right through what political leaders have been saying on both sides of the Channel.”
A couple of months ago, the British Foreign Affairs Committee perceived “absence of a strategic vision from the government for the UK-EU relationship, with no coherent narrative tying its various objectives within the reset together”. How do you respond to that?
“I made that point when I spoke to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. And you will see, I’m sure the speeches that I’ve made. I mean, the speech in Brussels in February last year, ahead of the summit, when I spoke about my approach of ruthless pragmatism and the new strategic partnership. You’ll see the speech I gave at the Spectator back in August of last year. So neither I, nor the Prime Minister, nor indeed the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor, have been shy about setting out our vision. And indeed, I will also add this: we came into this government with a mandate from the public to deliver our vision and our plan for the EU relationship. It was in the 2024 manifesto. I had spent the previous 12 months doing the groundwork in opposition and building the diplomatic relationships that delivered it in government. Not only do we have a vision for this closer UK-EU relationship, this new strategic partnership based fundamentally on shared security challenges — and I mean security in its widest sense, from defence to energy to industrial — but also we had a plan that was going to actually deliver it, and that’s what I’ve been pursuing.”
What would you expect from the EU? What’s your main target?
“A durable, workable new strategic partnership that is grounded in the post-Brexit reality and the challenges we face today, a partnership that is fit for the future, that is fit for the world of the mid to late 2020s, not looking back a decade, but looking at where we are now and building that relationship that is about security and safety and prosperity for all our citizens across Europe.”
Do you think that this instability of the Labour government may have a detrimental or negative impact on the negotiations with the EU?
“No, because we’re not even two years into this Parliament. And what I can say to the EU is this: you have over three years left of the Parliament, and we have over 400 MPs in it. So the UK does not have to concern itself, as it does in other contexts, with agreeing things with me and with the Prime Minister and others and then thinking, oh no, there’s a really small or tiny parliamentary majority, and then we might spend all our time agreeing something, then the people that we’re negotiating with can’t deliver it. That’s not the case in the UK. You have over three years left of the Parliament. In fact, the opposite. That reinforces why this is the moment to be ambitious.”
Do you think that the Prime Minister is going to stay in office after the seventh of May election?
“The answer is yes, the Prime Minister will continue”.
Do you think that the King should continue his visit to the US, despite what happened last night in Washington, DC, with the shooting?
“Yes. First of all, solidarity to our American friends and to everyone who was at the White House Correspondents Dinner. It looks like an incredibly scary experience. Very grateful to the American secret services, I know our UK embassy staff who were there. As you can imagine, a State Visit from our head of state, the King and indeed the Queen, is always subject to very careful security planning. I know that those discussions will obviously now continue.”