BRUSSELS — Elon Musk has denied that X’s artificial intelligence tool Grok generates illegal content in the wake of AI-generated undressed and sexualized images on the platform. In a fresh post Wednesday, X’s powerful owner sought to argue that users — not the AI tool — are responsible and that the platform is fully compliant with all laws. “I[‘m] not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok,” he said. “Literally zero.” “When asked to generate images, [Grok] will refuse to produce anything illegal, as the operating principle for Grok is to obey the laws of any given country or state,” he added. “There may be times when adversarial hacking of Grok prompts does something unexpected. If that happens, we fix the bug immediately.” Musk’s remarks follow heightened scrutiny by both the EU and the U.K., with Brussels describing the appearance of nonconsensual, sexually explicit deepfakes on X as “illegal,” “appalling” and “disgusting.” The U.K.’s communications watchdog, Ofcom, said Monday that it had launched an investigation into X. On Wednesday, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the platform is “acting to ensure full compliance” with the relevant law but said the government won’t “back down.” The EU’s tech chief Henna Virkkunen warned Monday that X should quickly “fix” its AI tool, or the platform would face consequences under the bloc’s platform law, the Digital Services Act. The Commission last week ordered X to retain all of Grok’s data and documents until the end of the year. Just 11 days ago, Musk said that “anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content” in response to a post about the inappropriate images. The company’s safety team posted a similar line, warning that it takes action against illegal activity, including child sexual abuse material.

LONDON — The U.K. government must “dare to have principles” and help Greenland repel threats by Donald Trump, a senior minister in Greenland’s government told lawmakers in London.  Speaking after a briefing with MPs in the U.K. parliament Tuesday, Greenland’s Business and Energy Minister Naaja Nathanielsen said: “Dialogue is really, really what is needed at this point. And … even though problems in this world [are] complex, this should not be a reason not to go into these complex dialogues. They can be solved through dialogue instead of violence and force.”  Nathanielsen held the meetings amid growing pressure from the White House, where Trump is ramping up his threats to take control of Greenland — a minerals-rich, semi-autonomous territory within Denmark — including by military force.  The region is essential to securing U.S. security against threats from Russia and China, Trump claims. The U.S. will take over Greenland “the easy way” or “the hard way,” he said last week.  Nathanielsen said: “We feel betrayed. We feel that the rhetoric is offensive, as we have stated many times before — but also bewildering, because we have done nothing but support the notion that Greenland is a part of the American national self-interest.”  Nathanielsen made her plea to politicians in London after Denmark warned U.S. aggression would cripple the NATO military alliance. The leaders of Denmark and Greenland both say Greenland is “not for sale”.  DEAR KEIR Asked about the message she was bringing to U.K. politicians and Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Nathanielsen said: “To insist on having the dialogue, even though it’s difficult, to dare to have principles and belief in international law. I think we will all be asked about that in the next couple of years.”  She said she would “like to repeat my gratitude” for Starmer’s support of Greenland, and said the U.K. must “insist upon the global community upholding international law” and “stress the relevance of NATO as a relevant and important alliance.” Starmer has warned Trump that Greenland’s future must be decided by Denmark and Greenland alone. Danish PM Mette Frederiksen has told the U.S. it has no right to the Arctic territory.  But the U.K. leader is also keen not to get into fights with Trump on too many fronts, at a time when his government is trying to both secure a favorable U.S. trade deal and influence the White House’s approach to striking peace between Russia and Ukraine.  Trump says that securing Greenland is essential for bolstering U.S. security. But Nordic governments have rejected his claims that Chinese and Russian vessels are operating in waters near Greenland.   Nathanielsen said Greenland did not “detect an actual threat” but was “quite content” with increased monitoring around the Arctic.  Leaders in Greenland are clear that “we have no intention of becoming American” and are “quite happy with being part of the Kingdom of Denmark,” she stressed.   She would not be drawn on whether Greenland would expect backing from NATO allies, including the U.K. if the U.S. were to invade Greenland.  Keir Starmer has warned Trump that Greenland’s future must be decided by Denmark and Greenland alone. | Pool Photo by Ludovic Marin via EPA “If this scenario was to happen, I think everybody in this room and everybody in your countries would have to figure out: What is this new world order about?” she said.   In that scenario “we would all be under attack,” she added.  END OF APPEASEMENT One British MP who helped organized Nathanielsen’s visit said it was time for the U.K. government to take a firmer line on Trump’s aggression in the region.  “I have a huge sympathy, because I know and I can understand it. If you’re sitting in a foreign office right now, then this is a problem which would keep you awake at night,” said Brendan O’Hara, a Scottish National Party MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Greenland.   But the time for “trying to keep this guy [Trump] on board” has gone, O’Hara added.  “I don’t blame them for trying. But when you appease somebody to this extent, and then they still openly talk about invading a NATO ally — it’s incredible,” he said.   Dywne Ryan Menezes, founder of the Polar Research and Policy Initiative think tank, which also helped organize Tuesday’s briefing, said the U.K. could do more to show its support for Greenland.   “I’ve been saying for years now: With Greenland, we can’t see it as a small country. 
It might be a small country population-wise, but it is a geopolitical giant that’s getting hotter by the day,” he said.  Menezes urged ministers to prioritize free trade talks with Greenland. “It’s one thing we can do to demonstrate that, you know, we take it seriously. It is action, and not just words.”  Nathanielsen said she was meeting a trade minister from the Labour government, Chris Bryant, later on Tuesday, as part of “very early discussions” on a possible free trade agreement between the two countries.  “Of course, when hopefully all of this cools down a bit, that you continue your collaboration investments in Greenland, we are quite happy about your partnerships,” she added.  BIG DAYS But the future of Greenland, she acknowledged, may not lie in its own hands. Foreign ministers from Greenland and Denmark are set to meet U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington Wednesday. Greenland officials hope the meeting will allow them a better understanding of the “actual wishes from the American side,” Nathanielsen said.   Asked whether a deal proposing U.S. control should be put to a vote inside Greenland, she agreed this was essential.   “I think we should be able to have a say ourselves in the future of our lives. For others, this might be a piece of land, but for us it’s home.” 

LONDON — Reform UK’s deputy leader Richard Tice has floated replacing the Office for Budget Responsibility with a rotating panel of experts to produce economic forecasts for the U.K. government.  In an interview with POLITICO, Tice attacked the OBR’s “woeful” forecasts and proposed replacing it with a revolving panel of the top economic forecasters in the country, who would produce their own estimates of the U.K.’s fiscal health. “What’s the point of them if you’re not going to do your job properly?” Tice said of Britain’s under-fire fiscal watchdog. “There is a turgid reluctance to accept the process of continuous improvement.” “If you didn’t have the OBR, what are you replacing [it with]? Well, maybe you could have a revolving panel of the top eight economic forecasters who have, twice a year, a mandate to produce their own estimate of the key six [to] eight metrics,” he added. His comments follow previous suggestions from Reform UK’s leader Nigel Farage to abolish the body, but it has not yet been clear what the party would propose to take its place. As Reform continues to top U.K. opinion polls, the development of the party’s economic agenda has been closely watched by the financial sector and beyond. The OBR has come under attack for its forecasting record from both sides of the political aisle. It faced significant scrutiny in November after its economic and fiscal outlook, which contained detailed information on the contents of Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ autumn budget, was accidentally made accessible hours before she began her official announcement. OBR Chair Richard Hughes stepped down as a result of the leak. The OBR has also been criticized for its outsized influence on government spending, given that its forecasts can have a significant impact on which policies the Treasury decides to include in the budget. “The OBR is literally telling the government how to run its policy,” Tice said. “The government comes up with an idea, and it says to the OBR ‘what’s the consequence of this?’” “[The OBR] say this is our forecast, so the government says I can’t do that or I can do that, and then you find out that the OBR forecast was useless, not worth the paper it’s written on.” Tice joins former Prime Minister Liz Truss in his criticism of the independent body. Truss, who also called for the OBR to be abolished, shunned the watchdog’s provision of an independent economic forecast and analysis for her 2022 mini budget, leading to market turmoil. One of the Labour Party’s first acts upon reaching government in July 2024 was to put in place a “budget responsibility” bill to enable the OBR to produce of its own volition a forecast on major government tax or spending plans.

IF THE GOVERNMENT REALLY HAD THE COURAGE TO “RECONNECT EMOTIONALLY” WITH THE BRITISH VOTER, IT WOULD BE BLASTED BY SHAME AND HORROR ~ Tabitha Troughton ~ What is this, slithering in your direction, smears of red and shards of bone in its wake, smirking ingratiatingly, waving gory tentacles, and muttering platitudes through its 27,000 teeth? Is it a giant slug? No! It’s the UK’s government, which has just been told, by Starmer’s toxic chief of staff, that it needs “to reconnect emotionally with voters”. Given the government’s documented track record of carnage, cowardice and corruption, voters may well flee, but the Guardian is made of sterner stuff. “In a presentation”, that paper explained seriously on its 6 January front page, “ministers were told the government needed to gain back voters’ trust with three Es”. The jokes are writing themselves. Who would not, at this point, risk an MDMA-induced stroke for a brief, delusional high, in which one forgets the government’s ongoing policies, and also the near indescribable awfulness of a recent Keir Starmer promo video, in which workers were invited to Downing Street for Christmas lunch. This showcased the prime minister prodding limply at cold roast potatoes,and pretending to chat to a prole, while completely ignoring their replies. It was the best they could do, or a post-realist joke. The “three E’s” with which the government were told to woo the country turn out to be “emotion, empathy and evidence”. Presumably the same emotion driving continued diplomatic and military support for our ally, the Israeli government, whose continuing genocide in Gaza has seen children freeze to death in inundated tents. Perhaps the empathy to match that of our ally, the Israeli government, who backs settlers ravaging in the West Bank and escalates the torture and rape of Palestinian prisoners with relish and impunity. Or maybe the kind of evidence yet to be heard against un-convicted prisoners of conscience starving to death in UK prisons for opposing weapons supply to our ally, the Israeli government—deliberately held on remand way beyond the legal limit, while the government contemptuously dismisses them. The UK’s prime minister, eyes glassy, refuses to support international law. It is not, he says, in the “national interest”, as though it is ever in the national interest to be a humiliated ally to demented, brutal, sociopathic regimes. The economy of Spain, whose government has stood openly against Trump, is out-performing those of Germany, France and Italy. Meanwhile the UK, staggering and flailing, pays vassal tribute: billions more to US pharmaceuticals, billions upon billions more on “defence”. There is a vast, shapeshifting horror in the shape of civil war, posing on the horizon behind the UK’s giant slug of shame. It is being invited into the country by obedient acolytes Nigel Farage and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. And this government’s attempt to ditch jury trials, for example, is the latest in a series of gifts to this unholiest of gods. It is now absurdly easy to picture the UK state in five years time as a low-budget version of America, even without Reform. Looking to Gaza, we might be tempted to think we deserve this. But of course, no-one deserves this. If the government did have the courage to “reconnect emotionally” with the British voter, it would be blasted by shame and horror. Hannah Arendt observed, in ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’, that modern terror is not merely used by dictators against opponents, but as an instrument to rule masses of people, who are perfectly obedient. So, to the barricades, UK citoyens! Keep up your pens and paintbrushes, your guitars and cameras, your research tools; keep raising your flags and voices; sport your frivolous costumes against the coming shadow. Create plans for neighbourhood support. Save the slug from itself. Being “perfectly obedient” is not an escape, or an answer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Image: Number10 on Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 The post Gifts to the unholiest of gods appeared first on Freedom News.

Former U.K. Ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson said continuing his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was “a most terrible mistake,” but he declined to offer a direct apology to Epstein’s victims in his first interview since being fired from his post. Speaking to the BBC on Sunday, Mandelson said he regretted believing Epstein’s account after the financier’s 2008 conviction and described his continued association with Epstein as “misplaced loyalty.” However, he said he would not personally apologize to victims, arguing that responsibility lay with a wider system that failed to protect them. “I want to apologise for a system that refused to hear their voices and did not give them the protection they were entitled to expect,” Mandelson said. “That system gave him protection and not them.” In the interview, Mandelson also said he never witnessed inappropriate behavior while spending time with Epstein and claimed he was “kept separate” from Epstein’s sexual activities because he is gay. U.K. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said Mandelson’s refusal to apologize directly to victims was a missed opportunity. “It would have gone a long way for Peter to have apologized to the victims,” she said, adding that she would not have maintained contact with someone in Epstein’s position. Mandelson was dismissed as ambassador in September 2025 after emails emerged showing he sent supportive messages to Epstein following his conviction for soliciting a minor. Mandelson said during the BBC interview that the emails were a “shock” and that he no longer possessed them at the time of his appointment. Asked whether he deserved to be fired, Mandelson said he understood the decision and had no intention of reopening the issue.

ROME — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni on Friday called on Europe to appoint a special envoy to talk to Russia, as efforts continue to end the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. Meloni said that she agreed with French President Emmanuel Macron, who last month called for new dialogue with the Kremlin. Russian President Vladimir Putin “expressed readiness to engage in dialogue” with Macron, Moscow said in response. “I believe the time has come for Europe to also speak with Russia,” Meloni told a press conference in Rome on Friday. “If Europe speaks to only one of the two sides on the field, I fear that the contribution it can make will be limited.” Meloni warned that Europe needs a coordinated approach or “risks doing Putin a favor.” Since the beginning of negotiations over a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, “many voices have been speaking out, and that’s why I’ve always been in favor of appointing a European special envoy on the Ukrainian issue,” Meloni said. Peace talks aimed at ending the all-out conflict, which Russia launched in February 2022, have accelerated with U.S. President Donald Trump back in the White House, but Moscow has not indicated that it is willing to make concessions. The U.S. in November proposed that Russia be readmitted to the Group of Seven leading nations. But Meloni said it was “absolutely premature” to talk about welcoming Russia back to the G7 fold. Meloni also emphasized that Italy would not join France and the U.K. in sending troops to Ukraine to guarantee a potential peace deal, because it was “not necessary” if Ukraine signed a collective defense agreement with Western allies modeled on NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense provision. She suggested that a small contingent of foreign troops would not be a serious deterrent against a much larger Russian force. Reacting to Trump’s recent aggressive rhetoric toward Greenland, Meloni said that she “would not approve” of a U.S. military takeover of the vast Arctic island. “I don’t believe that the USA will carry out military action on Greenland, which I would not approve of and would not do anyone any good,” she told reporters. Meloni said she believed the Trump administration was using “very assertive methods” to draw attention to the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. interests and security. “It’s an area where many foreign actors are carrying out activity and I think that the message of the USA is that they will not accept excessive interference by foreign actors,” she said.   Meloni also countered Trump’s remarks Thursday that he does not need international law, stressing that “international law must be defended.” But she added that it was normal to disagree with allies, “as national interests are not perfectly aligned.” “When I don’t agree with Trump, I say so — I say it to him.”

LONDON — Choosing your Brexit camp was once the preserve of Britain’s Tories. Now Labour is joining in the fun.  Six years after Britain left the EU, a host of loose — and mostly overlapping — groupings in the U.K.’s ruling party are thinking about precisely how close to try to get to the bloc. They range from customs union enthusiasts to outright skeptics — with plenty of shades of grey in between. There’s a political urgency to all of this too: with Prime Minister Keir Starmer tanking in the polls, the Europhile streak among many Labour MPs and members means Brexit could become a key issue for anyone who would seek to replace him. “The more the screws and pressure have been on Keir around leadership, the more we’ve seen that play to the base,” said one Labour MP, granted anonymity like others quoted in this piece to speak frankly. Indeed, Starmer started the new year explicitly talking up closer alignment with the European Union’s single market. At face value, nothing has changed: Starmer’s comments reflect his existing policy of a “reset” with Brussels. His manifesto red lines on not rejoining the customs union or single market remain. Most of his MPs care more about aligning than how to get there. In short, this is not like the Tory wars of the late 2010s. Well, not yet. POLITICO sketches out Labour’s nascent Brexit tribes. THE CUSTOMS UNIONISTS  It all started with a Christmas walk. Health Secretary Wes Streeting told an interviewer he desires a “deeper trading relationship” with the EU — widely interpreted as hinting at joining a customs union. This had been a whispered topic in Labour circles for a while, discussed privately by figures including Starmer’s economic adviser Minouche Shafik. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy said last month that rejoining a customs union is not “currently” government policy — which some took as a hint that the position could shift. But Streeting’s leadership ambitions (he denies plotting for the top job) and his willingness to describe Brexit as a problem gave his comments an elevated status among Labour Europhiles.  “This has really come from Wes’s leadership camp,” said one person who talks regularly to No. 10 Downing Street. Naomi Smith, CEO of the pro-EU pressure group Best for Britain, added any Labour leadership contest will be dominated by the Brexit question. MPs and members who would vote in a race “are even further ahead than the public average on all of those issues relating to Europe,” she argued. Joining a customs union would in theory allow smoother trade without returning to free movement of people. But Labour critics of a customs union policy — including Starmer himself — argue it is a non-starter because it would mean tearing up post-Brexit agreements with other countries such as India and the U.S. “It’s just absolutely nonsense,” said a second Labour MP.    Keir Starmer has argued that the customs union route would mean hard conversations with workers in the car industry after Britain secured a U.K.-U.S. tariff deal last summer. | Colin McPherson/Getty Images And since Streeting denies plotting and did not even mention a customs union by name, the identities of the players pushing for one are understandably murky beyond the 13 Labour MPs who backed a Liberal Democrat bill last month requiring the government to begin negotiations on joining a bespoke customs union with the EU. One senior Labour official said “hardly any” MPs back it, while a minister said there was no organized group, only a vague idea. “There are people who don’t really know what it is, but realize Brexit has been painful and the economy needs a stimulus,” they said. “And there are people who do know what this means and they effectively want to rejoin. For people who know about trade, this is an absolute non-starter.” Anand Menon, director of the UK in a Changing Europe think tank, said a full rejoining of the EU customs union would mean negotiating round a suite of “add-ons” — and no nations have secured this without also being in the EU single market. (Turkey has a customs union with the EU, but does not benefit from the EU’s wider trade agreements.) “I’m not convinced the customs union works without the single market,” Menon added.  Starmer has argued that the customs union route would mean hard conversations with workers in the car industry after Britain secured a U.K.-U.S. tariff deal last summer, a person with knowledge of his thinking said. “When you read anything from any economically literate commentator, the customs union is not their go-to,” added the senior Labour official quoted above. “Keir is really strong on it. He fully believes it isn’t a viable route in the national interest or economic interest.” THE SINGLE MARKETEERS (A.K.A. THE GOVERNMENT) Starmer and his allies, then, want to park the customs union and get closer to the single market.  Paymaster General Nick Thomas-Symonds has long led negotiations along these lines through Labour’s existing EU “reset.” He and Starmer recently discussed post-Brexit policy on a walk through the grounds of the PM’s country retreat, Chequers. Working on the detail with Thomas-Symonds is Michael Ellam, the former director of communications for ex-PM Gordon Brown, now a senior civil servant in the Cabinet Office. Ellam is “a really highly regarded, serious guy” and attends regular meetings with Brussels officials, said a second person who speaks regularly to No. 10.   A bill is due to be introduced to the U.K. parliament by summer which will allow “dynamic” alignment with new EU laws in areas of agreement. Two people with knowledge of his role said the bill will be steered through parliament by Cabinet Office Minister Chris Ward, Starmer’s former aide and close ally, who was by his side when Starmer was shadow Brexit secretary during the “Brexit wars” of the late 2010s. Starmer himself talked up this approach in a rare long-form interview this week with BBC host Laura Kuenssberg, saying: “We are better looking to the single market rather than the customs union for our further alignment.” While the PM’s allies insist he simply answered a question, some of his MPs spy a need to seize back the pro-EU narrative. The second person who talks regularly to No. 10 argued a “relatively small … factional leadership challenge group around Wes” is pushing ideas around a customs union, while Starmer wants to “not match that but bypass it, and say actually, we’re doing something more practical and potentially bigger.”  A third Labour MP was blunter about No. 10’s messaging: “They’re terrified and they’re worrying about an internal leadership challenge.” Starmer’s allies argue that their approach is pragmatic and recognizes what the EU will actually be willing to accept. Christabel Cooper, director of research at the pro-Labour think tank Labour Together — which plans polling and focus groups in the coming months to test public opinion on the issue — said: “We’ve talked to a few trade experts and economists, and actually the customs union is not all that helpful. To get a bigger bang for your buck, you do need to go down more of a single market alignment route.”  Stella Creasy argued that promising a Swiss-style deal in Labour’s next election manifesto (likely in 2029) would benefit the economy — far more than the “reset” currently on the table. | Nicola Tree/Getty Images Nick Harvey, CEO of the pro-EU pressure group European Movement UK, concurred: “The fact that they’re now talking about a fuller alignment towards the single market is very good news, and shows that to make progress economically and to make progress politically, they simply have to do this.”  But critics point out there are still big questions about what alignment will look like — or more importantly, what the EU will go for.  The bill will include areas such as food standards, animal welfare, pesticide use, the EU’s electricity market and carbon emissions trading, but talks on all of these remain ongoing. Negotiations to join the EU’s defense framework, SAFE, stalled over the costs to Britain. Menon said: “I just don’t see what [Starmer] is spelling out being practically possible. Even at the highest levels there has been, under the Labour Party, quite a degree of ignorance, I think, about how the EU works and what the EU wants.   “I’ve heard Labour MPs say, well, they’ve got a veterinary deal with New Zealand, so how hard can it be? And you want to say, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but New Zealand doesn’t have a land border with the EU.”  THE SWISS BANKERS Then there are Europhile MPs, peers and campaigners who back aligning with the single market — but going much further than Starmer.  For some this takes the form of a “Swiss-style” deal, which would allow single market access for some sectors without rejoining the customs union.   This would plough through Starmer’s red lines by reintroducing EU freedom of movement, along with substantial payments to Brussels.  But Stella Creasy, chair of the Labour Movement for Europe (LME), argued that promising a Swiss-style deal in Labour’s next election manifesto (likely in 2029) would benefit the economy — far more than the “reset” currently on the table. She said: “If you could get a Swiss-style deal and put it in the manifesto … that would be enough for businesses to invest.”  Creasy said LME has around 150 MPs as members and holds regular briefings for them. While few Labour MPs back a Swiss deal — and various colleagues see Creasy as an outlier — she said MPs and peers, including herself, plan to put forward amendments to the dynamic alignment bill when it goes through parliament.  Tom Baldwin, Starmer’s biographer and the former communications director of the People’s Vote campaign (which called for a second referendum on Brexit), also suggests Labour could go further in 2029. “Keir Starmer’s comments at the weekend about aligning with — and gaining access to — the single market open up a whole range of possibilities,” he said. “At the low end, this is a pragmatic choice by a PM who doesn’t want to be forced to choose between Europe and America.   “At the upper end, it suggests Labour may seek a second term mandate at the next election by which the U.K. would get very close to rejoining the single market. That would be worth a lot more in terms of economic growth and national prosperity than the customs union deal favoured by the Lib Dems.”  A third person who speaks regularly to No. 10 called it a “boil the frog strategy.” They added: “You get closer and closer and then maybe … you go into the election saying ‘we’ll try to negotiate something more single markety or customs uniony.’”  THE REJOINERS? Labour’s political enemies (and some of its supporters) argue this could all lead even further — to rejoining the EU one day. “Genuinely, I am not advocating rejoin now in any sense because it’s a 10-year process,” said Creasy, who is about as Europhile as they come in Labour. “Our European counterparts would say ‘hang on a minute, could you actually win a referendum, given [Reform UK Leader and Brexiteer Nigel] Farage is doing so well?’”  With Prime Minister Keir Starmer tanking in the polls, the Europhile streak among many Labour MPs and members means Brexit could become a key issue for anyone who would seek to replace him. | Tom Nicholson/Getty Images Simon Opher, an MP and member of the Mainstream Labour group closely aligned with Burnham, said rejoining was “probably for a future generation” as “the difficulty is, would they want us back?” But look into the soul of many Labour politicians, and they would love to still be in the bloc — even if they insist rejoining is not on the table now. Andy Burnham — the Greater Manchester mayor who has flirted with the leadership — remarked last year that he would like to rejoin the EU in his lifetime (he’s 56). London Mayor Sadiq Khan said “in the medium to long term, yes, of course, I would like to see us rejoining.” In the meantime Khan backs membership of the single market and customs union, which would still go far beyond No. 10’s red lines.  THE ISSUES-LED MPS Then there are the disparate — yet overlapping — groups of MPs whose views on Europe are guided by their politics, their constituencies or their professional interests. To Starmer’s left, backbench rebels including Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler backed the push toward a customs union by the opposition Lib Dems. The members of the left-wing Socialist Campaign Group frame their argument around fears Labour will lose voters to other progressive parties, namely the Lib Dems, Greens and SNP, if they fail to show adequate bonds with Europe. Some other, more centrist MPs fear similar. Labour MPs with a military background or in military-heavy seats also want the U.K. and EU to cooperate further. London MP Calvin Bailey, who spent more than two decades in the Royal Air Force, endorsed closer security relations between Britain and France through greater intelligence sharing and possibly permanent infrastructure. Alex Baker, whose Aldershot constituency is known as the home of the British Army, backed British involvement in a global Defense, Security and Resilience Bank, arguing it could be key to a U.K.-EU Defence and Security Pact. The government opted against joining such a scheme.   Parliamentarians keen for young people to bag more traveling rights were buoyed by a breakthrough on Erasmus+ membership for British students at the end of last year. More than 60 Labour MPs earlier signed a letter calling for a youth mobility scheme allowing 18 to 30-year-olds expanded travel opportunities on time limited visas. It was organized by Andrew Lewin, the Welywn Hatfield MP, and signatories included future Home Office Minister Mike Tapp (then a backbencher).  Labour also has an influential group of rural MPs, most elected in 2024, who are keen to boost cooperation and cut red tape for farmers. Rural MP Steve Witherden, on the party’s left, said: “Three quarters of Welsh food and drink exports go straight to the EU … regulatory alignment is a top priority for rural Labour MPs. Success here could point the way towards closer ties with Europe in other sectors.”  THE NOT-SO-SECRET EUROPHILES (A.K.A. ALL OF THE ABOVE) Many Labour figures argue that all of the above are actually just one mega-group — Labour MPs who want to be closer to Brussels, regardless of the mechanism. Menon agreed Labour camps are not formalized because most Labour MPs agree on working closely with Brussels. “I think it’s a mishmash,” he said. But he added: “I think these tribes will emerge or develop because there’s an intra-party fight looming, and Brexit is one of the issues people use to signal where they stand.” A fourth Labour MP agreed: “I didn’t think there was much of a distinction between the camps of people who want to get closer to the EU. The first I heard of that was over the weekend.”  The senior Labour official quoted above added: “I don’t think it cuts across tribes in such a clear way … a broader group of people just want us to move faster in terms of closeness into the EU, in terms of a whole load of things. I don’t think it fits neatly.” For years MPs were bound by a strategy of talking little about Brexit because it was so divisive with Labour’s voter base. That shifted over 2025. Labour advisers were buoyed by polls showing a rise in “Bregret” among some who voted for Brexit in 2016, as well as changing demographics (bluntly, young voters come of age while older voters die).  No. 10 aides also noted last summer that Farage, the leader of the right-wing populist party Reform UK, was making Brexit less central to his campaigning. Some aides (though others dispute this) credit individual advisers such as Tim Allan, No. 10’s director of communications, as helping a more openly EU-friendly media strategy into being. For all the talk of tribes and camps, Labour doesn’t have warring Brexit factions in the same way that the Tories did at the height of the EU divorce in the 2010s. | Jakub Porzycki/Getty Images THE BLUE LABOUR HOLDOUTS  Not everyone in Labour wants to hug Brussels tight.  A small but significant rump of Labour MPs, largely from the socially conservative Blue Labour tribe, is anxious that pursuing closer ties could be seen as a rejection of the Brexit referendum — and a betrayal of voters in Leave-backing seats who are looking to Reform. One of them, Liverpool MP Dan Carden, said the failure of both London and Brussels to strike a recent deal on defense funding, even amid threats from Russia, showed Brussels is not serious.   “Any Labour MP who thinks that the U.K. can get closer to the single market or the customs union without giving up freedoms and taking instruction from an EU that we’re not a part of is living in cloud cuckoo land,” he said. A similar skepticism of the EU’s authority is echoed by the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), led by one of the most pro-European prime ministers in Britain’s history. The TBI has been meeting politicians in Brussels and published a paper translated into French, German and Italian in a bid to shape the EU’s future from within.   Ryan Wain, the TBI’s senior director for policy and politics, argued: “We live in a G2 world where there are two superpowers, China and the U.S. By the middle of this century there will likely be three, with India. To me, it’s just abysmal that Europe isn’t mentioned in that at all. It has massive potential to adapt and reclaim its influence, but that opportunity needs to be unlocked.”  Such holdouts enjoy a strange alliance with left-wing Euroskeptics (“Lexiteers”), who believe the EU does not have the interests of workers at its heart. But few of these were ever in Labour and few remain; former Leader Jeremy Corbyn has long since been cast out. At the same time many Labour MPs in Leave-voting areas, who opposed efforts to stop Brexit in the late 2010s, now support closer alignment with Brussels to help their local car and chemical industries. As such, there are now 20 or fewer MPs holding their noses on closer alignment. Just three Labour MPs, including fellow Blue Labour supporter Jonathan Brash, voted against a bill supporting a customs union proposed by the centrist, pro-Europe Lib Dems last month.  WHERE WILL IT ALL END?  For all the talk of tribes and camps, Labour doesn’t have warring Brexit factions in the same way that the Tories did at the height of the EU divorce in the 2010s. Most MPs agree on closer alignment with the EU; the question is how they get there.  Even so, Menon has a warning from the last Brexit wars. Back in the late 2010s, Conservative MPs would jostle to set out their positions — workable or otherwise. The crowded field just made negotiations with Brussels harder. “We end up with absolutely batshit stupid positions when viewed from the EU,” said Menon, “because they’re being derived as a function of the need to position yourself in a British political party.” But few of these were ever in Labour and few remain; former Leader Jeremy Corbyn has long since been cast out. | Seiya Tanase/Getty Images The saving grace could be that most Labour MPs are united by a deeper gut feeling about the EU — one that, Baldwin argues, is reflected in Starmer himself. The PM’s biographer said: “At heart, Keir Starmer is an outward-looking internationalist whose pro-European beliefs are derived from what he calls the ‘blood-bond’ of 1945 and shared values, rather than the more transactional trade benefits of 1973,” when Britain joined the European Economic Community.  All that remains is to turn a “blood-bond” into hard policy. Simple, right?

LONDON — The U.K. should follow Donald Trump’s example and quit the United Nations treaty that underpins global action to combat climate change, the deputy leader of Reform UK said. Richard Tice, energy spokesperson for Nigel Farage’s right-wing populist party, said the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the linked U.N. climate science body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were “failing British voters.” Asked if the U.K. should follow the U.S. — which announced its withdrawal from the institutions, plus 64 other multilateral bodies, on Wednesday — Tice told POLITICO: “Yes I do. They are deeply flawed, unaccountable, and expensive institutions.” The 1992 UNFCCC serves as the international structure for efforts by 198 countries to slow the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. It also underpins the system of annual COP climate conferences. The U.S. will be the only country ever to leave the convention. Reform UK has led in U.K. polls for nearly a year, but the country’s next election is not expected until 2029. A theoretical U.K. exit from the UNFCCC would represent an extraordinary volteface for a country which has long boasted about global leadership on climate. Under former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the U.K. hosted COP26 in 2021. It has been one of the most active participants in recent summits under Prime Minister Keir Starmer. It was also the first major economy in the world to legislate for a net zero goal by 2050, in line with the findings of IPCC reports. Tice has repeatedly referred to the target as “net stupid zero.” The U.K. government was approached for comment on the U.S. withdrawal. Pippa Heylings, energy and net zero spokesperson for the U.K.’s centrist Liberal Democrat party, said Trump’s decision would “make the world less secure.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson will travel to London later this month to address the United Kingdom’s Parliament, becoming the first sitting U.S. speaker to do so. Johnson announced his invitation on Wednesday, saying he was “honored and humbled” to accept the invite from Sir Lindsay Hoyle, speaker of the U.K. House of Commons, ahead of America’s 250th anniversary of independence. “The U.S. and the UK have stood together as pillars of peace and security across generations,” Johnson said in a statement. “We forged this important friendship in the great wars of the 20th century, but the true source of our strength comes from our shared commitment to individual freedom, human dignity, and the rule of law, which together form the exceptional, joint heritage of the English-speaking world.” Johnson’s address on Jan. 20 will be one of many ceremonial events the U.S. has planned to commemorate this year’s anniversary around the country. “As America begins its Semiquincentennial celebration, I will be happy to visit one of the great shrines of democracy itself, where the principles that launched the long struggle for American liberty were debated and refined,” Johnson added. Though Johnson will be the first sitting speaker to address Parliament, Hoyle said he was pleased to continue a tradition from 50 years ago, when his predecessor invited then-Speaker Carl Albert to London to mark the 200th anniversary. Doing so, Hoyle added, continues to “acknowledge the enduring close relationship between our parliaments and people.” “Our UK Parliament is sited just miles away from where the cross-Atlantic relationship began more than 400 years ago,” Hoyle said in a statement distributed by Johnson’s office. “The courage of the Founding Fathers, who set sail on the Mayflower for the New World, built a bridge and connections across the Atlantic, which continues until today.” POLITICO London Playbook previously reported that Johnson was expected to visit Parliament.

LONDON — Britain stepped up a promise to send troops into Ukraine — and left open a host of questions about how it will all work in practice. At a meeting of the “coalition of the willing” in Paris this week, the U.K. and France signed a “declaration of intent” to station forces in Ukraine as part of a multinational bid to support any ceasefire deal with Russia. It builds on months of behind-the-scenes planning by civil servants and military personnel eager to put heft behind any agreement. Despite promising a House of Commons vote, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has so far shared very little information publicly about how the operation might work and what its terms of engagement will be, at a time when Britain’s armed forces are already under significant strain. This lack of transparency has begun to raise alarm bells in defense circles. Ed Arnold of think tank the Royal United Services Institute has described the U.K. as being in “a really dangerous position,” while retired commander Tim Collins said any peacekeeping mission would not be credible without higher defense spending. Even Nigel Farage was in on the action Wednesday — the populist leader of Britain’s Reform UK party said he couldn’t sign up to the plan in its current form, and predicted the country could only keep its commitments going “for six or eight weeks.” Here are the key questions still lingering for Starmer’s government. HAS THE UK GOT ENOUGH TROOPS? In France, Emmanuel Macron is at least starting to get into the numbers. The French president gave a televised address Tuesday in which he said France envisaged sending “several thousands” of troops to Ukrainian territory. But Starmer has given no equivalent commitment. Under pressure in the House of Commons, the British prime minster defended that position Wednesday, saying the size of the deployment would depend on the nature of the ceasefire agreed between Russia and Ukraine. However, analysts say it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a deployment does not place a genuine strain on the U.K.’s military. The country’s strategic defense review, published last year, stressed that the Britain’s armed forces have dwindled in strength since the Cold War, leaving “only a small set of forces ready to deploy at any given moment. The latest figures from the Ministry of Defence put the number of medically-deployable troops at 99,162. Figures including former head of the army Richard Dannatt and Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, have warned that a new deployment in Ukraine would mean pulling away from existing operations. There is also a hefty question mark over how long troops might be deployed for, and whether they might be taking on an open-ended commitment of the kind that snarled Britain for years in Afghanistan. RUSI’s Arnold said positioning troops in Ukraine could be “bigger” than deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Libya, “not necessarily in numbers, but in terms of the consequences… This mission absolutely can’t fail. And if it’s a mission that can’t fail, it needs to be absolutely watertight.” WHAT HAPPENS IF RUSSIA ACTUALLY ATTACKS? Ministers have refused to be drawn so far on the expectations placed on troops who might be stationed in Ukraine as part of the plan. They have instead placed an emphasis on the U.K.’s role as part of a “reassurance” force, providing air and maritime support, with ground activity focused on training Ukrainian soldiers, and have not specified what would happen if British troops came under direct threat. The latest figures from the Ministry of Defence put the number of medically-deployable troops at 99,162. | Pool photo by Jason Alden/EPA That’s already got Kyiv asking questions. “Would all the COW partners give a strong response if Russia attacks again? That’s a hard question. I ask all of them, and I still have not gotten a clear answer,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told reporters via WhatsApp chat on Wednesday. “I see political will. I see partners being ready to give us strong sanctions, security guarantees. But until we have legally binding security guarantees, approved by parliaments, by the U.S. Congress, we cannot answer the question if partners are ready to protect us,” Zelenskyy added. Richard Shirreff, former deputy supreme commander of NATO in Europe, told LBC: “This can’t be a lightly armed ‘blue beret’-type peacekeeping force … enforcing peace means being prepared to overmatch the Russians, and that means also being prepared to fight them if necessary.” A U.K. military official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said: “There is no point in troops being there if they’re not prepared to fight.” Asked if British troops could return fire if they came under attack from Russia, a Downing Street spokesman said Wednesday afternoon that they would not comment on “operational hypothetical scenarios.”  Ministers have refused to be drawn so far on the expectations placed on troops who might be stationed in Ukraine as part of the plan. | Tolga Akmen/EPA Returning fire might even be one of the simpler possibilities for the army to contemplate, with less clarity over how peacekeeping forces could respond to other types of hostile activity designed to destabilize a ceasefire, such as drone incursions or attempted hacking. WILL THE US REALLY PROVIDE A BACKSTOP? Starmer has long stressed that U.K. military involvement will depend on the U.S. offering back-up. John Foreman, a former British defense attaché in Moscow and Kyiv, said it was right for the multinational force to focus on support for Ukraine’s own forces, pointing out: “It was never going to be able to provide credible security guarantees — only the U.S. with perhaps key allies can do this.” While Washington has inched forward in its apparent willingness to provide security guarantees — including warm words from Donald Trump’s top envoys in Paris Tuesday — they are by no means set in stone.  The final statement, which emerged from Tuesday’s meeting, was watered down from an earlier draft, removing references to American participation in the multinational force for Ukraine, including with “U.S. capabilities such as intelligence and logistics, and with a U.S. commitment to support the force if it is attacked.” This will only add to fears that the U.K. is talking beyond its capabilities and is overly optimistic about the behavior of its allies. Government officials pushed back against the accusation that British military plans lack substance, arguing that it would be “irresponsible” to share specific operational details prematurely. That position could be difficult to maintain for long.