Jannike Wachowiak offers some insight into the EU’s perspective on UK-EU relations.

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. This is perhaps understandable. Brexit has been a central fault line in British politics and has divided our political parties for more than a decade. Consequently, from the Malthouse Compromise to more recent calls for a customs union, the intended audience is often domestic. That said, this is hardly a recipe for a successful negotiation between the two sides.

So, where does the EU stand on all this? Perhaps the first thing to note is that the UK no longer features prominently on the EU’s list of priorities. European leaders simply don’t spend much time thinking about relations with the UK. The war in Ukraine, relations with the US and China, and the competitiveness of the single market have long replaced Brexit at the top of the council’s agenda.

A window of opportunity opened when Labour came to power in July 2024. There was genuine curiosity about the promised reset. However, European leaders quickly grew impatient over the perceived lack of clarity and drive from London. As ever, they felt the ball was in the UK’s court. That it was up to London to decide what it wanted and communicate this. This view still holds. As the commission’s chief spokesperson put it as recently as February, the forthcoming summit (presumably in July 2026) would be “the occasion to discuss with UK what, exactly they, have in mind, and how they propose to go about it.”

Partly, this is due to a sense that it should not be the EU’s responsibility to fix what the UK broke; partly, the EU’s institutions still remember past attempts at closer cooperation being rebuffed by the UK. Most significantly, the EU remains wary of offering a ‘privileged’ relationship to the UK which could then unravel established relationships with other third countries, such as Norway or Switzerland.

None of which is to say that the EU is not interested in closer relations with the UK. There is a recognition that times have changed since the TCA negotiations of 2020, and that the UK is an important partner in a more dangerous world. The commission’s 2024-29 political guidelines make it clear that the EU wants to strengthen relations ‘on issues of shared interest, such as energy, security, resilience and people-to-people contacts’.

The UK government might be well advised to focus on these areas. While talks are already underway on UK participation in the EU’s electricity market and youth mobility, cooperation on security and resilience remains, at present, underexplored. However, as in the case of the failed Safe negotiations, there is no guarantee of success even in areas of mutual interest. Nevertheless, both sides appreciate the need for cooperation. Importantly, the EU recently decided to leave the door ajar for UK companies to benefit from the €90bn loan for Ukraine.

Conspicuously absent from the Commission’s list of ‘shared interests’ is trade. More than five years into the application of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, its most recent assessment maintains that it is a ‘very good’ agreement for the EU. This indicates a high threshold for reviewing the economic elements of the deal. What is more, the British Prime Minister’s expressed interest in exploring alignment in certain areas of the single market comes up against the EU’s red lines: no cherry-picking, and the need to maintain the balance of rights and obligations in agreements with other third countries. While the EU’s willingness to negotiate agreements on food and drinks and electricity shows some flexibility, it is unlikely that this will extend to further areas of the single market unless there is a wider discussion around freedom of movement and significant cohesion payments.

An additional difficulty is that the EU is currently discussing ‘Made in EU’ targets which might shut out certain British products and technologies from European supply chains. It will be up to member states (and the European Parliament) to define whether ‘Made in EU’ extends to trusted partners outside the single market.

While excluding the UK would be bad news for Europe’s resilience, there is no unified EU view. Some, like Germany, advocate more permissive conditions for a partner which they deem strategically important (‘Made with Europe’ rather than ‘Made in Europe’).However, others, like France, are pushing back – wanting to favour their own industries – or are simply less concerned by how a third country like the UK may be impacted.

All of which means the UK must invest time and resources in understanding the evolving priorities in Brussels and in member states. London needs to consider what contribution the UK can usefully make to strengthening Europe’s resilience and security. This would also make it easier to test British proposals in other areas, in dialogue with the EU and member states, ultimately increasing their chances of success.

By Jannike Wachowiak, Research Associate, UK in a Changing Europe.

This piece was originally published by the Fabian Society in their report Pressing reset: our relationship with Europe.

Protests across at least 10 cities have highlighted the harms of ‘touristification’.

Particularly through its reliance on aviation, the tourism industry is driving displacement, deepening housing crises and fueling climate breakdown worldwide.

Demonstrations were seen in Barcelona, Palma and San Sebastián (Spain), Belfast (Northern Ireland), Lisbon (Portugal), Malolos (Philippines), Marseille and Paris (France), Mexico City (Mexico) and Vienna (Austria).

Worldwide action

From marches and performances to blockades and direct actions, communities resisted the transformation of neighbourhoods into ‘playgrounds for the rich’.

Across the world, long-term residents are being priced out. Urban and coastal areas are also reshaped for tourists and multinational companies.

International tourism relies heavily on air travel, one of the fastest-growing sources of carbon emissions. Backed by cheap flights and expanding air routes, this model privatises public land, drives up rents and undermines local economies, pushing communities into increasingly precarious conditions.

Protesters stressed that touristification and aviation are intertwined crises, driven by a system that prioritises profit over people and the planet.

World Cup of dispossession

In Mexico, protesters denounced the impacts of large-scale events like the FIFA World Cup. They called it the “World Cup of dispossession”, promoting local displacement, private interests and megaprojects instead of human rights, such as housing, water and dignified work.

In Barcelona, Palma, San Sebastián, Belfast and Vienna, demonstrators called for an end to the expansion of short-term tourist accommodation. This includes listings on platforms like AirBnB, which they argue drive up housing costs and accelerate gentrification.

In Marseille, protests highlighted the social and environmental impacts of overtourism.

In Malolos, fisherfolk and community members opposed the construction of the new Manila International Airport, which is driving displacement and the loss of livelihoods.

‘Fewer planes, more homes’ was a slogan seen in Paris and in Lisbon, where protesters formed a red line to oppose the conversion of a city-centre building into a hotel.

Drawing a red line

Inês Teles, spokesperson for the global network Stay Grounded, said:

We need to draw a red line. We must stop airport expansion, reduce air traffic, limit short-term tourist accommodation and make housing a right, not a commodity. We are united in the fight for affordable, accessible housing for all and against the forces that profit from our homes, displace people and destroy our planet. Our communities and the planet are not for sale.

These actions took place during the Housing Action Days (23–29 March), a global week of mobilisation with over 150 actions in 96 cities, demanding housing justice on a liveable planet.

Featured image via Stay Grounded

Subscribe to the Commons People podcast

Football in Italy is experiencing one of its darkest periods after the national team failed to qualify for the 2026 World Cup, missing the tournament for the third consecutive time. This has been described by international media reports as an unprecedented ‘historic collapse’ for one of the pillars of the game.

According to Reuters, the latest elimination has sparked grief and anger in Italy, with reports of ‘tears and national shock.’ The Associated Press, meanwhile, considers this a ‘new normal’ for a team that was once the world’s dominant force.

Italy face a deepening crisis

Italy’s failure is no longer a passing event, but rather a continuous decline since their 2006 World Cup victory. They were eliminated in the group stage in 2010 and 2014, before failing to qualify for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments, culminating in their third consecutive absence in 2026.

This downward trajectory has prompted major Italian media outlets to use harsh descriptions, with local newspapers speaking of a ‘footballing disgrace’ and a ‘systemic collapse,’ arguing that the problem has transcended mere results and reached the very core of the country’s football structure.

The greatest paradox lies in the fact that this decline comes after Italy’s Euro 2020 triumph, which analytical reports have deemed a:

clear disconnect between momentary success and the absence of a long-term project.

Just when the Italian national team seemed poised to reclaim its continental glory, it encountered a different reality on the world stage, repeatedly failing to advance through the qualifiers and playoffs.

Structural flaws and a decline in talent

International reports suggest that the Italian crisis has deeper dimensions than just technical ones, pointing to a range of factors.

Most notably, there has been a decline in the country’s player development system and an increasing reliance on foreign players for Italian clubs, which has negatively impacted opportunities for developing local talent.

The reports also highlighted the lack of administrative and technical stability, along with the national team’s lack of leadership figures capable of handling the pressure in crucial matches – a deficiency clearly demonstrated by the successive failures during the qualifying rounds.

The recent elimination sparked widespread criticism within Italian sporting circles, with calls growing for a comprehensive review of the football system, from the national federation to the league structure and youth development programs.

In this context, reports quoted officials and former players confirming that “Italy is no longer just losing matches, but losing its footballing identity,” indicating the depth of the crisis the Azzurri are experiencing.

An uncertain future and open questions

Amid this situation, the Italian national team faces a real challenge to regain its historical standing, especially as it is one of the most decorated teams in World Cup history.

However, the repeated failures raise serious questions about Italy’s ability to break what has become known in the media as the “World Cup curse” and return to the global stage after years of absence and decline.

Featured image via the Associated Press

What is lördagsgodis?

What’s that got to do with my Easter eggs?

Any other rules?

Starting today, 1 April, MPs’ basic salary will rise to £98,599. For comparison, the average full-time worker in the UK made £39,039 a year, as of April 2025.

The pay bump marks a 5% increase in MPs’ basic wage. For comparison, average inflation stood at 3% as of January 2026.

Likewise, MPs’ salaries are expected to continue to rise to around the £110,000 by 2029, which marks the end of the current parliament. For comparison, even chancellor Rachel Reeves’ promise that people will be £1,000 better off by then is looking shaky at best. 

However, the basic salary is only the beginning of the story. MPs also get an expenses allowance to cover absolute necessities like their second homes in London, their offices, and travel. Likewise, if an MP also sits on a committee or holds an additional role, they of course receive extra money.

Meanwhile, teachers in the UK are still buying classroom supplies out of their own pocket.

MPs pay rise has to be a joke

If all of this is setting your blood to boiling, please calm down. Don’t be like the the Taxpayers’ Alliance said, who rushed to state that people will be:

seething to see politicians receive an inflation-busting pay rise, all while they suffer a personal recession.

Likewise, take care not to follow the example of the group’s chair John O’Connell, who said that:

After years of broken promises, falling living standards and deteriorating public services, MPs are being rewarded for failure with a princely pay boost.

You see, it’s not like MPs are setting their own salaries or anything – that would be monstrously corrupt.

Instead, politicians’ wages are determined by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). IPSA makes its decision based on a number of factors, including 3.5% cost-of-living increase, along with a 1.5% benchmarking adjustment.

The watchdog compares MPs’ salaries to other politicians in similar democracies, as well as senior figures in the public sector and the NHS. Public sector salaries are, in turn, set by review bodies and, ultimately, by MPs.

Fortunately, MPs’ salaries are not compared to lower-ranking public sector workers, as this would look less favorable. For example, most NHS staffers will receive a 3.3% pay rise this year. Similarly, Civil Service workers received pay awards of up to 3.25% on average for 2025/26.

‘The wider economic context’

The independent head of IPSA is Richard Lloyd. An interesting an unrelated fact about Richard Lloyd is that he worked as a special adviser to prime minister Gordon Brown. 

Explaining his decision, Lloyd said:

The role of an MP has evolved. They are dealing with higher levels of complex casework, and abuse and intimidation towards MPs and their staff has been growing.

In reaching our decision for 2026-27 we have benchmarked MPs’ pay against other responsible, senior roles in civic society and similar worldwide democracies, as well as considering our own core principles and the wider economic context.

In future years we will continue to consider prevailing economic and fiscal conditions when confirming annual pay decisions taking into account the experience of people outside of parliament.

When more work has been added to my jobs for the same pay as before, managers have called it a ‘necessary adjustment’ and ‘good business sense’. It’s nice that this kind of good business doesn’t apply to MPs.

It’s also nice that, despite their increasing casework and full-time jobs as MPs, parliamentarians are still finding time to work other jobs like appearing on the news in exchange for hundreds of thousands of pounds. Some even work extra jobs like appearing in cameo videos saying hi to neo-Nazis.

Growing levels of abuse, often factually accurate

Likewise, it’s also completely true that MPs are facing ever increasing levels of abuse. I know this, because I’m one of the cunts writing the abuse, and I’m writing more and more of it by the day.

However, I’m calling snivelling toerags like Starmer ‘snivelling toerags’ because he sucks up to fascist dictators like Donald Trump. I call Kemi Badenoch a racist horror because she talks about slashing human rights so that she can attack migrants. And, of course, I call Farage a far-right neo-Nazi shill because of the video evidence that he is a far-right neo-Nazi shill.

If MPs would like to receive less abuse, many would benefit from considering whether this abuse is linked to their being contemptible scum.

Until that point, they can kindly go fuck themselves – I imagine it’s covered by expenses.

Featured image via the Canary

1) The calendar theory

2) The fish theory

3) The King John theory