A short note on how Labour’s Leadership election rules work.

Rule Ch1.Vii establishes the roles, and delegates the election process to Ch4.II.

This from C1.VII, is quite amusing given the history of the last few years, underling is mine.

The Leader shall, as a member of the NEC, uphold and enforce the constitution, rules and standing orders of the Party and ensure the maintenance and development of an effective political Labour Party in parliament and in the country.

Chapter 4.II defines the nomination and election process. The first clause is the now sadly common rule that claims to establish a principle but actually allows the NEC to vary the process and either bend or break the rules. Any such variation would need to be conformant with Wedensbury reasonableness rules, but this is unlikely to be ever tested in a court.

The rules specify process to be followed in the case of a vacancy, or where no vacancy exists.

To be a valid nominee, a candidate requires nomination from the PLP, CLPs and affiliates. In the case of a vacancy, the rules are silent as to the order these are to be sought.

In the case of a challenge, someone would have needed to have collected the 20% of the PLP supporters, and then others would need to be given the opportunity to do so too. The timing of the making of supporting nominations by CLPs and affiliates is also silent.

The rules state that nominations shall be made by all three classes of nominators.

The election consists of a one member one vote and is designed to include union political levy payers, who are not members of a political party. This I thought interesting,

4.II.C.vii The precise eligibility criteria shall be defined by the NEC and set out in procedural guidelines and in each annual report to conference.

as yet again neither members nor candidates know the rules until after the election has been called and nominations made. See also the Rule Book 2026 and/or My Repo, which holds mirrors

As Labour turns a corner and begins to address if it should seek to lead the country into a closer relationship with the European Union, I found a thread on bluesky which questions if the UK is sufficiently democratic, and ready to adopt the complete acquis. I thought I’d reply, and this is what I say!

On Democracy

Is the UK sufficiently democratic to join the EU. The two key organisations that measure ‘democraciness’ both argue that the UK is a democracy. Its score in the EIU Index in 2024, is 8.34/10.00, its 11^th out of 20 in Western Europe, and above France, Italy, Spain and three other countries.  France and Italy it considers “Flawed democracies”.

I have some difficulty with the EIU methodology, as while its open and accessible, I find it hard to replicate and comng from the Economist scores defences of liberal economics highly vs the pursuit of social rights. I looked at this in 2018, where I categorised the Economist’s weaknesses in the UK’s democracy. Amnesty International says that the UK’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers is inadequate and that it fails to comply with its international obligations, including to ensure the rights to food, housing and adequate social security.

One issue raised in the thread is that the UK does not honour its devolution agreements. This will not impact the Copenhagen criteria; the EU treaties are an agreement between member states, and subsidiarity is an agreement between the EU and the member states. Subsidiarity ensures that “decisions should be made at the closest possible level to the citizen”. It would benefit all the citizens of the EU, and the UK, if the treaties required member states to have internal subsidiarity contracts with their people and that the Committee of Regions was accountable to the citizens of the regions and not appointed by member state governments.

On the Acquis

All the opt-outs are gone. The Brexiteers gave them away.

If the UK were to seek to rejoin the EU, it would need to agree to the EU’s freedom of movement laws. In fact all the opt-outs have gone and so while politically difficult for UK campaigners, freedom of movement is a benefit for which campaigners should argue and it is becoming more popular amongst young people.

The UK will also need to recognise that its Justice Pillar opt-outs have also gone, as everyone decent should want as they were designed, by a Labour Government, to allow the UK to have more illiberal immigration and trade union laws.

On the Euro, the UK should come to an agreement to adopt the Euro, i.e. supporters of rejoining need to be more explicit that both freedom of movement and the Euro are benefits and we should want them.

With respect to the Euro, I am still concerned about the Stability and Growth Pact as I don’t think macro-economic planning should be frozen in a treaty. I also think the quantitive money theory baked into the treaties are wrong and cause misery and poverty,.

The question I want to ask though is, that if AI, is meant to be so clever, how does it acquire all the science, social science and humanities white papers currently held behind copyright enforced paywalls or on DNS blocked repos.

It seems they don’t, unless they have “Partnership agreements” with the copyright holders for which they pay.

I’m concerned about this hole in human knowledge that is unavailable to the LLMs. Are we really betting all this money on only part of what we know?

The general intellect it is not!

I reviewed “Pressing Reset” , the recent Fabian pamphlet on the state of play within the mainstream of the Parliamentary Labour Party on relations with the EU. This was published on the Chartist Magazine’s website. I conclude that the Parliamentary Labour Party is still not ready to abandon cherry-picking, and abandon Starmer’s red lines.

In my review, I highlight Stella Creasy’s contribution where she makes a cogent argument for a Swiss style deal, made easier by the EU having recently updated the Swiss agreement. She recognises that to make progress, the UK is going to have to give something on freedom of movement. Liam Byrne makes an argument for an Economic Security Union, which he claims is definitely not just the single market renamed. It is in fact more comprehensive than the single market .  In the review, I say, “Byrne argues that a broader agenda will make agreement easier and that the UK must stop asking for favours and offer a true partnership.”. This is a contribution from a heavy weight to be welcomed.

 The final two chapters look at what’s happening in the EU. Jannike Wachowiak of UKICE writes about what the EU wants. He starts by saying that, “Brits spend an inordinate amount of time discussing what they want from the EU. They spend far less, however, pondering what the EU and its member states might want from them.”  In the review, I say, “Wachowiak argues that the consensus within the EU is that the TCA works well for them. He also argues that the EU still maintains an opposition to cherry-picking, and while there is some evidence that this is not as strong as it once was, it is clear that the EU will not agree to a better deal for an ex-member than that offered to other members and members of the EEA. Again, he argues the UK needs to put more on the table, and it needs to be what the EU and its member states want.”

As part of my conclusion, I say,

From reading the pamphlet, I have heard that some argue that we can’t rejoin, because  the EU has changed. This is true, but it seems we haven’t. We are still acting like a nation of shopkeepers, and unless we raise our ambitions, the EU is planning in further changes which will make it even harder to participate as a partner 3^rd country or even as members unless we decide that membership of these programmes is more beneficial than a Scrooge-like analysis of the costs and benefits of each programme.

Also,

… the biggest disappointment in the pamphlet. If Labour doesn’t lead [opinion] and drop its red lines, the cost of Brexit will increase, and the relationship will stagnate as the EU concentrates on other things.

Jannike Wachowiak and Jude Kirton Darling’s articles make it clear that we need to put more on the table and see the EU as a coalition of values and culture rather than exclusively a trade club or a defence market.

Despite all this, starting conversations about contributing to the cohesion fund and HMG’s commitment to legislate to allow dynamic alignment are hopeful.

However, without pressure, this government may make verbal compromises with its red lines but express no desire to genuinely commit to the European Union and thus the EU may just move on, addressing the issues that are more important to them.

James Schneider is in the ‘Statesman writing on Defence. This article is published with a tag line of, “Military insiders are trying to bully the government into dependency on an erratic United States”. I comment on the his arguments, and look at views expressed by other military commentators as to the sense of the UK’s US centric procurement policies and look at Kaldor and Cooper’s paper arguing that social resilience is a defence policy too.

Schneider argues correctly, but not with originality, that expenditure targets are not a strategy. A strategy must consider purpose, weapons and their source. He points out that George Robertson, a recent critic of the financial targets, is connected to and a long time supporter of the US Military Industrial complex. While Defence Secretary, he established the now bi-partisan position that the UK would develop an expeditionary capability designed to work in the context of “allies” i.e. a US led NATO. Robertson then went on to serve as NATO’s General Secretary. His criticisms of the Labour Government’s defence policies and appetite to fund them is repeated in an article in the Spectator written by John Foreman, who was formerly Britain’s defence attaché in Moscow and before that, Britain’s defence attaché in Kyiv.

The problem is that under Trump, the US is clearly an unreliable ally to the UK & Europe.

This opinion is the major assumption in Kaldor & Cooper’s paper, Organised Irresponsibility, where they argue that the Strategic Defence Review, is based on the assumption that NATO is the cornerstone of UK defence policy and that it double down on using the US as its major supplier focusing on expensive weapon systems which have been shown to be extremely vulnerable in Ukraine.

Does the reliance in US weapons systems and infrastructure jeopardise the UK’s defence capability. Schneider questions the availability of both the F35s, used on the aircraft carriers and for European operations and that of the nuclear deterrent. Further evidence is obliquely provided by Perun, an open source intelligence commentator, in a video entitled, “Arming Europe Without US Weapons?“, where he suggests in his imaginary European military, by their omission, that the UK’s exquisite weapons are all too US dependent.

Kaldor and Cooper make two additional arguments. The first that the SDR’s arguments and the government adoption of buying more US weapons limits European Co-operation, and they sub-title their conclusion, “Welfare is Resilience”.

I was reminded at a seminar yesterday, that some defence thinkers are trying to prepare the UK for the view that modern wars are between societies and that everyone needs to contribute. The SDR recognises, and observing Ukraine’s resistance, shows that, yet again, modern wars are likely to be conducted by the whole of society. Additionally, the new cold war is conducted in the grey zone, to which the best defence is a well informed and committed society.

A country at the end of fourteen years of austerity, with a corrupt media, and a public social wage commitment the lowest in Europe is not going to support enhanced defence expenditure at the expense of increased wages and diminishing social security.  The second part of Robertson’s statement is that the welfare bill is too high and that It needs to be cut in order to fund defence; this was days before we discover that the HMG undershot its borrowing projections by £700m.

The UK can’t have an impoverished people and a well funded military, even if the current weapons procurement proposals made sense. A defence policy/strategy needs to be about purpose, then weapons and their cost. The country also needs that its population thinks its worth defending.

Social justice & equality are defence projects too.

Rafael Behr writes a trenchant statement about the weakness of Labour’s “Fix Brexit” policy. It’s titled, “The Brexit delusion is dead – so now Keir Starmer doesn’t need to pretend any more” with a tag line, “To rebuild relations with Europe in a dangerous world, the prime minister needs to win big arguments, not hide behind outdated red lines”.

He criticises the timidity of the manifesto, Starmer’s apolitical approach to dealing with Europe, and everything really, points out that cherry-picking can never succeed and that membership is the best answer even for the economic questions.

Today’s debate amongst Labour’s leadership, is whether its possible to pursue a sector-by-sector negotiation without compromising the red lines. It is not! Unless the UK gets on the train, the next tranche of EU reforms will make it harder for an incrementalist approach to succeed. Furthermore the EU are not going to give better terms to an ex-member than to current or acceding states. Also the five year review is due to start, there is no reason why the EU will want to put more on the table, and Behr’s eloquent statement, that the only model that truly works is membership is now obviously true, made more so by the changing geo-political circumstances. I would add, that until we begin to talk about the need for mutual social solidarity with the peoples of the European Union, again progress will be slow. 

To me, this is a great article which you should read yourself, for those short of time, I have book marked the article in diigo, and made the following notes. The links are Behr’s, the italics mine.

.. the relationship can’t be settled because the EU is an evolving project in a world of flux. It responds to international crises, with consequences for the ex-member on its border. The options are more Brexit, or less, never a steady state.

Vladimir Putin’s territorial aggression, Donald Trump’s geopolitical vandalism and China’s emergence as a superpower nearing parity with the US combine to form an irresistible case for Britain to make common cause with Europe.

To facilitate a more intimate relationship, the government proposes legislation that will give ministers open-ended powers to adopt EU standards for various sectors of the economy. … Nigel Farage calls the proposed bill “a backdoor attempt to drag Britain back under EU control”.

• I say, the legislation and its flexibility are to be applauded, the ambition to take it further than the manifesto commitments is questionable.

The government insists there will be opt-outs and a scrutiny mechanism so that Britain’s economy won’t be a passive moon, orbiting planet Europe. How that will work in practice is hard to say because the plan for multisectoral economic alignment exists only in Whitehall imaginations. It isn’t yet a technical negotiation with the EU, except in the limited area of veterinary and agricultural goods.

The further Starmer tries to go in this direction, the harder he will collide with familiar Brexit obstacles. The European Commission will insist there can be no “cherry picking” from the single market; that non-member states wanting to enjoy the benefits of a European club can expect to pay subscription fees into European budgets; that the chancellor’s coveted prize of free movement for goods comes as a package with free movement of people.

… there is an elegant solution to that problem, but it exists beyond the bounds of conceivable scenarios for the current government. It involves British ministers and parliamentarians exercising significant leverage – including vetoes – over the rules and overall direction of the EU from seats in all of its governing institutions. It is the model called membership.

Paucity of ambition slows negotiations on the modest goals set in the 2024 manifesto.

Any deal on offer to a pro-European prime minister will include clauses insuring against backsliding by a Reform UK successor.

• I say, this is necessary.

It isn’t too late. Or at least there is less to fear, and not much left to lose, for an unpopular prime minister by talking about Brexit for what it is – not a deal to be revised or a condition to be managed but a tragic mistake to be corrected

Events have refuted every Eurosceptic myth. … Britain has trudged long enough through the bog of Johnson’s lies, against the headwinds of false Faragist promises. The strategic, economic and political facts are now dynamically aligned for a change of course.

I attended the Citidem seminar, on Poland. It was addressed by Professor Maciej Kisilowski, who has authored a book/paper collecting his thoughts. The paper is called , Introduction: A Polarized Country in Need of a New Social Contract, Let’s Agree on Poland. A Case Study in Strategic Constitutional Design. The paper is available at  the University of Warsaw site.  The seminar is available on youtube.

I made a contribution, here are my notes.

Professor Kisilowski spoke of the centripetal forces in Poland and argues that to combat these forces there needs to be new foci of power. He proposes Mayors, who will also meet in a national senate. He described the mayors as guardians of the constitution which reminded me of Labour’s proposals, for a basic law, enforced by a reformed upper house,  in the Brown Commission, a topic on which I blogged, and on which little progress has been made.

The problem with populist politics is the winner take all nature of the liberal democracies and their parties. Electoral systems that reinforce the winner take all culture do not serve democracy. In elections of Presidents and Mayors, there can only be one winner which reinforces the anti-democratic tendencies of politicians and weakens ‘loser’s consent’. One counter model is found in Switzerland, but parliaments and committees can and have to negotiate in the open and often they will find more acceptable solutions from the various stakeholders second and third choice preferences. I question whether directly elected presidents and mayors are the superior democratic answer to government.

It was argued that the EU could act as a guarantor or underwriter of human rights law, although it may be that there are those who oppose human rights law, and certainly human rights laws written by foreigners. This is certainly the case in the UK. I can see a role for the EU in this role and have supported the opposition and implementation of measures that the UK parliament would have wanted or not. The EU is operating its own agenda of centralisation which if desirable needs changes in governance rules.

Within the Aquis of the EU, subsidiarity is a relationship between the Union and the States. We, the people, need that subsidiarity to become a right; and that decisions are taken as close to the people it effects as possible.

Devolution is hard to implement because it means the meaningful transfer of power. If devolution is a gift, then it can always be taken back. We can see imperfect implementations of devolution in the UK in Scotland and Wales and in Spain in Catalunya & the Basque country, but also in Italy, Belgium and Finland.

On writing this piece, I add this as a conclusion. The arguments about a new constitution and the necessary conflict resolution mechanisms raises the issue of the freezing of inter-community dialogue and the embedding of the cultural polarisation. This can be seen in a number of places in the world, including Northern Ireland, Belgium, the Lebanon and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Northern Ireland, which I know better than the other locations, the power-sharing has led firstly to increased polarisation as the Unionists moved from Official Unionists to the DUP, and latterly, a structural inhibition on building cross-community parties.

My conclusion is that constitutions needs both flexibility and boundaries and that representative parliaments/councils are superior to presidents and mayors.

Featured Image: The Polish Sejm by Polish MFA cc-by-nd-2011 via flickr; w750

I have just posted on LinkedIn, “Does AI actually impact the bottom line in a good way?”. I look at an article from the Register based on a Gartner report which reports that in their survey AI projects “sucess rates were “only 28 percent of use cases fully succeed and offer return on investment (ROI).”

I look at at arguments from Perez’s Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital and remember a late 20th century paradox that while many IS projects had poor and even negative ROIs, firms that didn’t invest failed.

I was informed by the European Movement on threads, that the EU Council has approved talks between the EU & UK on electricity market integration and cohesion. While electricity was on the cards and was signposted in last years May Summit, the cohesion talks are a major departure. Whether this is the EU ensuring that the UK pays its way into the single market, or a genuine attempt to broaden the conversation about what the UK adopts/rejoins is to me unclear.

It may be some surprising good news, perhaps more evidence that Labour’s tanker is turning.

I was surprised at the cohesion fund announcement and so asked Gemini if the UK would be a net contributor to the fund. They suggest that it is unlikely that the UK would be able to claim from the fund as the UK’s GDP per capita is too high and its purpose is now targeted at poorer member states and not smaller localities. Gemini’s full reply is at https://share.google/aimode/R99jBkDkHT8Qd5Y2E

It seems they think the UK paying into the cohesion fund is to contribute to single market costs of joining the electricity single market. Under current rules the UK is unlikely to claim against the cohesion fund, despite having numerous European poverty areas.

I wrote a medium length blog on linkedin and medium about three US court cases on internet system service provider liability to consumers and non-consenting suppliers. The big tech companies lost two, on harm caused which they’ll appeal, and won one on carrier immunity.

I also look at Russia’s recent measures to cut Russian users from the world, and mention the UK’s expressed concern about internet harms.

On the Great Reset with the EU, things continue to move, if not between the EU & UK, at least inside the Labour Government.

At the end of February, the EU & UK signed a “cooperation deal on competition”. I find it hard to discover what this actually means but it gave Peter Kyle the opportunity to say that people want better, but the Government is not going very far. He is also quoted as saying that the British public are “not nostalgic” for the pre-Brexit past.

This was followed by a devastating and frank report from the House of Commons Foreign Affairs committee, published on a web page entitled, ‘UK-EU reset lacks “direction, definition and drive”’. It’s chairperson, Dame Emily Thornbury, is quoted as saying

“Sadly, we found that despite progress in some areas, the Government’s reset is languishing, suffering from a lack of direction, definition and drive. It feels as though we are on a journey with no clear destination. In many areas, the Government has failed to provide timelines, milestones, or priorities and it does not appear to have an ambitious, strategic vision for the UK’s new relationship with the EU.”

I was surprised to find, this report, of Maroš Šefčovič^[1]’s speech, presumably to the March meeting of the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly^[2] where he warns that closing the Erasmus deal is in danger, because the UK won’t agree sufficiently favourable financial terms for EU students to study at UK universities. This is symptomatic of the mean spirit in which HMG is negotiating the reset with every line item to be in the black inked “national interest”. Stella Creasy MP issued a short video, stating that the real prize is signle market compliance.

To succeed the UK needs to put more on the table.

On March 16^th, inews reports, echoing the Times, that Tracy Brabin, an ex-MP and West Yorkshire’s Mayor, calls for a closer, frictionless trading relationship with the EU after having participated in a trade delegation to Europe. Two days later, Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, in an interview in Republica, reported in the Guardian calls for Labour to rejoin tha single market, and fight the next general election pledging to rejoin the EU.

Rachel Reeves returned to the City Business School to deliver the Mais lecture, the text is posted on gov.uk and it is reported in the FT, in an article entitled “Rachel Reeves to make new push for greater single-market access”. Having read the speech, this should be seen as the unique centre piece of the speech, but she certainly identifies a better relationship with the single market as a key desirable driver of growth. Reviewing what she said, she retains the rhetoric of Starmer, Simmons-Thomas & Kyle, she says,

“…  alignment should be forward looking and durable, providing the certainty that businesses on both sides need to invest and grow. … There is also a strategic imperative for deeper integration between the UK and EU – in our shared need for greater economic resilience.  So my choice, the choice of this government, is not to turn back the clock but to look towards a new and stable, future relationship. 

One of the first replies to Reeves, was Anand Menon in the New Statesman, who says,

So Rachel Reeves wants more alignment with the European Union. Or so she announced in her Mais lecture yesterday (17 March). Cue commentators here going off on one, wondering if the Brexiteers will react, whether Leave voters will be concerned. Pro-EU voices retort that public opinion has moved on since the referendum and point to the increasingly clear economic impact of Brexit. What no one does is stop to wonder what the EU might think. This, unfortunately, is how we do Brexit.

It’s an important question to ask and answer.

The following week, Chris Bryant, the UK Trade minister made a speech, also reported in the Guardian calling for more ambition, and it reports that Sefcovic says the EU are still willing to offer a “Swiss Deal”, but I suspect the EU’s redlines drawn up by the reset agreement in May 2025 will not waver. The single market four freedoms are indivisible, the Court is the final arbiter, and the UK has to co-fund its agreements.

Sir john Curtice in an article, entitled, Sir John Curtice: Why Labour’s Brexit focus has shifted from Leavers to Remainers, writes of the electoral implications which is what we i.e. Labour Europhiles have always been told is the key reason for turning their backs on the EU and the party.

Will the pursuit of a closer relationship with the EU risk courting electoral disaster by alienating Brexit-backing voters? Or has the political front line fundamentally shifted so that it now makes political sense for Labour to change tack on Brexit?

He discuss polled switchers and concludes,

So, although Labour’s vote is currently down by nine points since 2024 among those who voted Leave, it has fallen by 19 points among those who supported Remain.

Over four weeks, a number of senior labour MPs and Mayors have reopened the debate, perhaps with the fear and influence of McSweeney diminished, this explains the new loquacity but it remains economistic and nationally selfish. We need to do more, the Govt needs to put more on the table, recognise that the May 25 Reset agreement together with the 2020 treaties are the start point of any and every new agreement. In my article, Brexit: reset or stall, I stated that

The EU have ensured the current treaties are confirmed and that any entrance to the single market includes dynamic alignment, CJEU judicial authority and financial contributions, in exchange, the UK have obtained agreement that the Commission will engage in pre-legislative consultation. 

To get further politicians need to think beyond our wallets and begin to listen to our EU member allies and the solidarity, security and cultural benefits that membership of an ever closer union brings. I would also add that in debating this in the party, too many take the leadership line without recognising the number of times people have been put up to defend a line that’s already changing.

[1] The Commissioner responsible for Trade & Economic Security.

[2] I have not reviewed the documentation of this meeting as it took me by surprise unlike the December meeting. At the same/similar time, Stella Creasy has also issued a video clip arguing that the benefits of a Swiss style single market agreement are more important than customs union synergies and that the time required for complete adoption is not available and too hard. I am not sure I agree.

I have represented Another Europe within Citizens takeover Europe for five years and recently wrote a report back on our joint work. This has been posted on the Another Europe’s web site. I talked about tracking the Conference on the Future of Europe, the political denouement of CoFoE, the 2024 EP elections, the growing strength of the nationalist and far-right in the EP, citizens assemblies, the EU democracy plan and opportunities for & threats to improvement.

I review the continued use of citizens’ assemblies and CTOE’s attempts to institutionalise them and its continued work on democratising the EU. I look at the recent batch of ECI petitions that have reached the threshold mandating a Commission response.

I look at the EU’s democracy action plan, for free and fair elections, zero foreign interference and disinformation and a free and independent press and media. I mention Eastern european’s distaste for state backed fact checking sites and note that,

Combatting disinformation requires comprehensive cyber-security capabilities and laws. The Digital Services Act gives the enforcement authorities the power and places obligations on the, mainly US, companies to report and react. Much of the political focus remains on the Russian state. It must be recognised that European and British democracy is vulnerable to attacks from both East and West as shown by the Brexit referendum.

I look at the US’s new digital colonialism and its extension into export sanctions on the ICC and visa refusals for European politicians and civil servants involved in the digital services act. I repeat my argument that AEIP must continue to argue that the government should be seeking to join the European Union single digital market and implement the DSA in the UK. It should also argue for membership of the customs union and single market now, and call on the political parties to commit to rejoining at the next election.

I note that the growing need for co-ordination in defence and foreign policy exposes an EU, its member states and British democratic deficit which is an opportunity and threat for establishing more democracy.

I sort of conclude, on the topic of what sort of constitution the EU needs. Copying the US constitution would mean copying its weaknesses such as the Senate, tax collecting laws and the singular executive. Within the coalition, AEIP argues for broadening the principle of subsidiarity to become a citizen right, not a member state right, and for a more democratic Committee of Regions.

These are my notes from Political Tech Summit 26. I have focused on those sessions I attended. The technology support presents what looks like AI written summaries of the sessions which were mainly panel sessions. I have quoted from these summaries and in one case sought to re-summarise using another LLM. I have tried to humanise the text so that the article remains in my voice but also informs you of what happened.

The first session I attended was entitled, “Protecting our Future: Cybersecurity for Society, State and Public Administration”. The panellists were Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann MEP, Chair of the European Parliament’s defence committee and Wieland Holfelder, Vice President and Regional CTO for Google. The conference preview promised the argument that society has transitioned from a state of peace into a perpetual “cyber war” where digital attacks precede physical conflict and would conclude by agreeing that Europe must shift from mere regulation to “operational resilience” by leveraging AI to counter scale-based threats from global adversaries like China and Russia.

MSZ was clear that Europe need to own its solutions while not explicitly stating that US was a source of threat. She cited the recent Davos conference as a source of European concern and unity. Hofelder was explicitly asked, how, in a world of the US Cloud Act, Google could be expected to keep European citizens’ & governments’ private data private. He argued that their solution of third-party key holders under contract, who would need European incorporation and ownership, should be sufficient and they have made a lot of effort to present their solution set as fit for purpose. One problem is that while measures to encrypt data on the wire and at rest exist, data is unencrypted while being processed.

The panel did not spend much time examining the EU’s legislative defences, but the US consider the Digital Services Act to be against the interests of the big-tech companies. This is because if enforced it’s an essential part of European citizens’ defences against both hate speech and AI generated nonsense and lies.

The conference summary includes the paragraph,

Holfelder presented AI not just as a risk, but as the primary engine of defense. He noted that AI has revolutionized threat detection, stating, “In the past, you would need to find the needle in the haystack. Now, we just burn the haystack and find the needles.” Highlighting Google’s “CyberShield” technology, which increased defensive capabilities by over 300% and kept Ukrainian government websites operational, Holfelder argued that cloud-based solutions offer superior security to localized systems. However, this sparked a debate on sovereignty; while Holfelder pointed to Ukraine’s reliance on the cloud, Strack-Zimmermann cautioned that Europe must find its own path to avoid over-reliance on a U.S. administration that may no longer be a guaranteed ally, stressing the need for technical verification without blind trust.

I like Holfelder’s metaphor and for many/most of us relying on the talent of Google’s cybersecurity staff is a better answer than rolling our own. There remain questions about US companies needs to meet US compliance laws before those of their EU or host countries; this remains a risk for non-US companies and people.

Another thing that I was curious about, is that while the session was advertised as beyond the firewall, there was no mention of our historic ideas on cyber defence, cyber-security nor the international standards defining good practice, such as COBIT & ISO27001. We know a lot about keeping data secret & truthful, we shouldn’t forget it.

On the 2^nd Day, I attended a session entitled, “Beyond the Firewall: Online Safety, Regulation, and Why Defense Alone Is No Longer Enough”.  This was chaired by Damien Collins, who has an admirable record in UK Tech regulation; he is an ex-UK MP. He was joined by Alexandra Geese MEP,  Zoe McKenzie MP [Australia] and Lisa Steigertahl from Deloitte.

Participants have access to summaries of the session, and the summary for this includes the paragraphs,

… [They] highlighted a fundamental tension between “engagement-based ranking” and liberal democracy. Geese argued that algorithms designed to exploit rage and fear are “systemic risks to democracy” because they prioritize our “animal brains” over rational discourse. While Lisa Steigertahl from Deloitte … advocated for “AI sandboxes” to test safety by design, the political speakers emphasized that the issue is primarily one of political will.

… the [panel] contrasted Australia’s gradual regulatory path with the more confrontational tone surrounding EU-U.S. digital relations. McKenzie noted that Australia established its e-safety framework early, giving platforms time to adapt, whereas the EU now finds itself negotiating digital regulation amid broader disputes over security and trade.

Mckenzie also noted that the tension between Australia and the US Tech companies is almost certainly less than that between them and the EU due to the smaller population (and thus profitability). She also noted that the pre-teen ban on social media is popular amongst voters.

Geese’s statements about encouraging rage, reminded me of last year’s presentation by Beth Goldberg who also highlighted the strong linkage between profit and rage and the resulting amorality of the platform providers. Geese was particularly forthright on Grok/X’s use of AI to attack and humiliate woman and girls.

Their conclusion was that the EU has the enforcement laws it needs, the problem is the seeming lack of a will to enforce within the Commission, which is  fearful of US retaliation in the trade and defence spheres. They also argued that EU needs to have its own social media infrastructure to replace the profit driven US social media platforms. This and other contributions over the weekend reminded me of the growing calls for European IT sovereignty. See https://davelevy.info/wiki/it-sovereignty/

Damien Collins was an excellent moderator; it was great to see  he hasn’t given up.

Ned Mendez in  a presentation called “Signal Integrity and Audience Insight in the Post-Platform Era Findings” argues that twitter/x in particular, but also facebook have no-one that political activists want to talk to. These platforms are also ‘poisoned’ by amoral players who post for money while the platforms chase for profit at the expense of a decent user experience enables and accelerates this aspect of enshitification.  

Here’s a concise summary by Mistral of Ned Mendez’s argument about the “post-platform” era and its implications for political strategy. He argues,

… that we are entering a “post-platform” era where digital signals—once reliable for political strategy—are now “compromised.” Platforms like X are not neutral; they actively   and shape what is visible, measured, and analyzed[1]. Algorithms create fractured realities: right-leaning users see reinforcing content, while left-leaning users face hostile, competing messages. High engagement metrics often reflect what platforms show, not what people truly believe.

In this world, local grievances can be “supersized” by international actors often working for money, creating “zombie signals”—amplified distortions that appear as national crises but are actually commercial noise. Reacting to these by politicians and the state undermines democratic resilience.

I paraphrase Mistral & Mendez by saying that the answer may be to move away from “elite bubbles” (MPs, journalists, activists) to “non-politically aligned environments” (everyday spaces like hobby forums or local community pages). If a political issue appears in a gaming forum, or on a football terrace, it signals genuine public concern. I describe that to myself as having a control sample.

If the meme’s are not getting traction, we can conclude that not every social media wave deserves a response. Success in the future will depend on distinguishing real signals from noise and ignoring profit seeking big tech nonsense.  This aspect of the talk reminded me of Labour’s nineties instant rebuttal solution, and wonder if their time has passed, certainly no-one is talking about that this year.

The final session I in this report was called, “Is Social Media dead?”. The panel members were Ben Guerin, co-founder of Topham Guerin and Clare O’Donoghue Velikic, Founder of ODV Digital.

They argued that Social Media is changing, it’s losing its intimacy and the platforms are  becoming media presences i.e. it’s losing the “social”. They also argued that there is a move from text to video, and that these need to be short. Tik-tok is now more viewed than Google although I wonder if AI will help restore[2] a balance. On a personal note, and I was the only person admitting to posting to Facebook in the last 24 hours, I prefer text as I can control the time I spend and make my own priorities by skipping the boring bits, but the panel argue that political commentators need to do [short] video first.

Velikic also argues echoing Mendez, see above, that the number of useful correspondents on the platforms is limited. In fact, she argued that it’s so limited that even advertisers should think twice.

From the conference summary, ‘Velikic argues that,

the best response is not to compete in a “race to the bottom” metrics-wise, but to be the “green grocer”—a voice of authenticity, humility, and humanity that provides a “beacon” in a sea of AI slop. There was a consensus that the “TikTokification” of society is leading toward a “post-literate” world where a politician’s entire platform must be condensed into a single, memorable sentence to survive the 30-second attention span.’

They make the point that rage gets clicks but is that what politicians want? Surely they want their ideas to convince.

The algorithms have not gone away and they are still opimised for profit.

Again from the summary,

The bottom-line is that while social media as we knew it is dead, it has been reborn as a multimodal, video-first battlefield where “speed will decide the truth”. To win in 2026, political actors must stop throwing money at Zuckerberg and start harnessing their own “digital civilian patrols”—engaged supporters who act in real-time to defend narratives on messaging platforms. As Velikic concluded, the only way to beat the machines is to show the algorithms that people actually want “real humor, humility, and humanity” over automated slop.

My summary conclusions from the conference are that

• My view that, very few politicians or their technologists or parties know how to persuade, remains true. A lot of the political technology today focuses on GOTV and fund raising.
• European politicians are angry about Grok’s nudification tools and there is some resolve to ensure that US companies don’t make money by proselytising hate.
• The platforms are no longer useful as means of contacting voters, and the arguably no longer useful as an advertising platform.
• Chatterton’s lessons from last year, that velocity and authenticity count more than a high volume/low hit rate communication strategy.
• The conference, or at least the bits I saw, were more technical and less political than 2025.

[1] Oh dear. Mistral writes with US spelling.

[2] No reason why it should, AI’s can make video now.

I came across this cartoon, on linkedin, which reminded me of a comment made at a recent ORG meeting that the UK cannot be an AI powerhouse because our electricity is too expensive.

It’s also possible that this is one reason why the bitcoin miners are now all located in China.

It set me thinking, and I made this chart.

The UK is expensive, and it would seem that this is true of the EU too.

The linkedin article argues that China’s energy investment has been about energy sovereignty. Perhaps its time the EU and UK governments thought about these issues.

So McSweeney is permitted to resign ‘from government’ and in his apology seeks to constrain his downfall to his support for Mandelson as US ambassador. His departure gives Labour the opportunity to find its heart again as McSweeney did so much to remove it, building a party that as Martin Forde predicted, in his inquiry report, where factional loyalty counted for more than public service.

Clive Lewis writes on Facebook, saying, among other things,

… That mindset hollowed Labour out. It replaced a party rooted in working-class life with a professional political caste fluent in donor networks, private dinners and elite reassurance, while communities were told to accept decline as the price of ‘responsible’ government. Politics became about managing optics and markets, not challenging vested interests or redistributing power.

McSweeney’s departure changes none of that on its own. Unless Labour confronts the culture that rewarded closeness to wealth, blurred ethical lines and treated democratic accountability as an inconvenience, this will amount to little more than damage limitation.

Remove one operator and the system that produced him remains. And unless that system is dismantled, Labour will continue to lose its moral authority, its social base, and ultimately its right to govern, leaving the ground clear for forces far worse to exploit the wreckage.

The whole piece is worth reading.

I agree with Clive, this is an opportunity, one that was always coming, to turn the government and the Party round. The Party bureaucracy and elements of the PLP need clearing out, without it, my Party’s future looks very dim.

Richard Burgon, also says, that this is only a necessary first step.

My Union branch has passed a motion for GMB Congress calling for the Labour Government to rejoin the single market and customs union now, and for the Party to ask for a mandate to rejoin at the next election. Is this needed? I am of the view that the speed of the “Reset” is glacial and that without a change in attitude they will not achieve anything of significance or notice before the end of the parliament.

 Of the five point plan, two are stuck, and the refusal to consider ‘freedom of movement’ while seeking a “swiss style” deal are massive inhibitors to concluding agreement in areas that should be simple.

Despite my pessimism, both sides claim some progress has been quietly made over the last month.  This is reported optimistically by google gemini.  However, the Commission statement does not itemise any progress outside the agenda set at the May 25 Summit.

There was also a meeting of the joint specialised committees, between the Government and the Commission, producing a statement. https://bit.ly/4rxLX4T which reviewed the recent past, noting the UK’s agreement to re-enter Erasmus+ and its [possible] resolution of the UK breach of the Withdrawal Agreement terms on citizens’ rights, together with the 9 month old agreement to regularise the fishing arrangements. They have already claimed credit for all this. Its all old news.

On trade, they again note progress and anticipate more, yet much of the focus is GB/NI trade and the EU’s right of inspection. This is another point of diplomatic friction and a source, together with the issue of citizens’ rights, of the infringement proceedings.

When considering the Trade & Co-operation Agreement, the meeting anticipated further work on energy co-operation and finalising the agreements on Youth exchange, SPS and a common emissions trading scheme. They talked about global steel overcapacity, economic and supply chain security, and parties’ respective industrial policy measures. They also discussed the development and implementation of their respective Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms. These are reporting of agenda items, not completed actions.

They reference a third UK-EU dialogue on Cyber issues in December 2025 and discussed the next steps towards progressing cooperation on cyber security although the meeting of which they write, seems equally inconclusive.  Also, they looked at the potential implications of the (EU’s) Artificial Intelligence and Cyber Resilience Acts and agreed to continue to talk.

They also anticipated the Treaty reviews, which one might hope will be conducted more quickly than progress on the reset.

In fact, the slow pace of agreement, does not auger well for the treaty review process.

Some say this is the fault of the EU, but mood and good relations are not enough and the UK’s red lines and sector-by-sector approach are provocations for any bad behaviour by the EU.

I did some searching to see if anything had developed from the EU/UK meetings in December. It seems that there have been a couple of inter-governmental meetings. Is progress being made, in the famous words, of Captain Rum, opinion be divided.

I made a note on my wiki, called, Brexit reset winter 2025-26. I look and summarise the documents, and the agenda of the meetings, one of which is on cyber security. I note a report entitled UK-EU Cybersecurity cooperation in the context of the TCA 2024 from the Independent Commission on UKEU relations. This is the landing page for a report but undated. I also note that UKicE identify digital regulation as a point of divergence between the two parties.

I conclude,

This is thin gruel, making the most of what has already been agreed and congratulating themselves on the slow progress of the reset agenda. The immigration reforms are to be welcomed.

Meanwhile, we note UK EU divergence tracker Q4 2025 from UK iCE who note the divergence in the UK, on financial services regulation and by the EU on climate impact reporting and regulation of AI and social media.

In an article, Starmer prepares for parliamentary battles over imminent EU ‘reset’ bill, jessicaelgot suggested that there is movement on the “red lines”. It is clearer on reading that this is an attempt to accelerate UK agreement to the currently on-going trade negotiations by increasing the powers of the relevant ministers.

The article uses the phrase swiss-style agreement which is highly unlikely to succeed and at the best is tone deaf as to the EU’s needs and wants.  

UK in a changing Europe, document what they see as the timetable and goals of the current reset negotiations.I see them as optimistic, and everyone seems to forget that the EU’s starting point is full implementation of the withdrawal agreement and Windsor framework; there remain, even 18 months after the general election, eight infringement proceedings unresolved.

It’s sort of interesting that they think they need new language, but to me, they have not yet changed their mind.

I also see this as a means by which the Government deflects the internal Labour Party pressure towards joining the Customs Union by posing, parts of, the single market as an alternative. It is disappointing to see so many seeing the Customs Union as sufficient advance, but the UK economy and people need and want membership of both, including, reciprocal, free movement of  people.

Labour should join the customs union and single market now and promise to rejoin the EU in its next election manifesto.

Various news sources, including the Brussels Times, report that EU is demanding a “poison pill” clause in further agreements, to make the cost of revoking the new treaties exorbitant. This should have been proposed by the UK side, and without it negotiations would stop.

I predict they won’t until they abandon the strategy of triangulating against reform and that will take significant personnel changes in the Government.

Image: from PIxabay, their licence

Starmer on an interview on the BBC, reported in the Guardian, said he wanted closer alignment with the EU and its single market but no return to freedom of movement nor the customs union. In fact the reports suggest that he is presenting a new language for the current policy to try and stop the momentum towards the customs union. I don’t think this is an advance although he may change his mind; he often does, usually after some poor front bencher has just defended the policy. It’s all very, “The thick of it”.

This story was also reported in the FT, BBC & Independent. The BBC report is much clearer that there has been no change to the “Red Lines”.