LONDON — They’re young, full of ideas — and about to be given the vote. Britain’s government has committed to lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 years — a major extension of the electorate that could have big implications for the outcome of the next race, expected by 2029. It means Brits who are just 12 today are in line to vote in the next general election, which is expected to be a fierce battle between incumbent Keir Starmer and his right-wing challenger Nigel Farage. But what do these young people actually think? In a bid to start pinning down the views of this cohort, POLITICO commissioned pollster More in Common to hold an in-depth focus group, grilling eight youngsters from across the country on everything from social media disinformation to what they would do inside No. 10 Downing Street. To protect those taking part in the study, all names used below are pseudonymous. The group all showed an interest in politics, and had strong views on major topics such as immigration and climate change — but the majority were unaware they would get the chance to vote in 2029.  In a bid to prepare the country for the change, the Electoral Commission has recommended that the school curriculum be reformed to ensure compulsory teaching on democracy and government from an early age. GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER There are few better introductions to the weird world of British politics than prime minister’s questions, the weekly House of Commons clash between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Conservative opponent Kemi Badenoch. Our group of 12-13-year-olds was shown a clip of the clash and asked to rate what they saw. They came away distinctly unimpressed. Hanh, 13, from Surrey, said the pair seemed like children winding each other up. “It seems really disrespectful in how they’re talking to each other,” she commented. “It sounds like they’re actually kids bickering … They were just going at each other, which didn’t seem very professional in my opinion.” Sarah, 13, from Trowbridge in the west of England, said the leading politicians were “acting like a pack of wild animals.” | Clive Brunskill/Getty Images Sarah, 13, from Trowbridge in the west of England, said the leading politicians were “acting like a pack of wild animals.” In the clip, the Commons backbenches roar as Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch quips about Starmer’s MPs wanting a new leader for Christmas. In turn, the PM dismisses the Conservative chief’s performance as a “Muppet’s Christmas Carol.” Twelve-year-old Holly, from Lincolnshire, said the pair were being “really aggressive and really harsh on each other, which was definitely rude.” And she said of the PM: “It weren’t really working out for Keir Starmer.” None of the children knew who Badenoch was, but all knew Starmer — even if they didn’t have particularly high opinions of the prime minister, who is tanking in the polls and struggling to get his administration off the ground. Twelve-year-old Alex said the “promises” Starmer had made were just “lies” to get him into No. 10. Sophie, a 12-year-old from Worcester in the West Midlands, was equally withering, saying she thought the PM is doing a “bad job.” “He keeps making all these promises, but he’s probably not even doing any of them,” she added. “He just wants to show off and try to be cool, but he’s not being cool because he’s breaking all the promises. He just wants all the money and the job to make him look really good.” Sarah said: “I think that it’s quite hard to keep all of those promises, and he’s definitely bitten off more than he can chew with the fact that he’s only made those statements because he wants to be voted for and he wants to be in charge.”  While some of the young people referenced broken promises by Starmer, none offered specifics. THE FARAGE FACTOR Although they didn’t know Badenoch as leader of the opposition, the whole room nodded when asked if they knew who Nigel Farage was. Although they didn’t know Badenoch as leader of the opposition, the whole room nodded when asked if they knew who Nigel Farage was. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images “He’s the leader of the Reform party,” said Alex, whose favorite subject is computing. “He promises lots of things and the opposite of what Starmer wants. Instead of helping immigrants, he wants to kick them out. He wants to lower taxes, wants to stop benefits.” Alex added: “I like him.” Sarah was much less taken. “I’ve heard that he’s the leader of the far right, or he’s part of the far right. I think he’s quite a racist man.” Farage has faced accusations in recent weeks of making racist remarks in his school days. The Reform UK leader replied that he had “never directly racially abused anybody.” Other participants said they’d only heard Farage’s name before. When asked who they would back if they were voting tomorrow, most children shrugged and looked bewildered. Only two of the group could name who they wanted to vote for — both Alex and Sam backed Farage. POLICY WORRIES Politicians have long tried to reach Britain’s youngsters through questionable TikTok videos and cringe memes — but there was much more going on in the minds of this group than simply staring at phones. Climate change, mental health and homelessness were dominant themes of the conversation. Climate change is “dangerous because the polar bears will die,” warned Chris, 13, from Manchester. Sophie, who enjoys horse riding, is worried about habitats being destroyed and animals having to find new homes as a result of climate change, while Sarah is concerned about rising sea levels. Thirteen-year-old Ravi from Liverpool said his main focus was homelessness. “I know [the government is] building houses, but maybe speed the process up and get homeless people off the streets as quick as they can because it’s not nice seeing them on the streets begging,” he said. Sam agreed, saying if he personally made it into No.10, he would make sure “everyone has food, water, all basic survival stuff.” Sarah’s main ask was for better mental health care amid a strained National Health Service. “The NHS is quite busy dealing with mental health, anxiety and things like that,” she said. “Maybe we should try and make an improvement with that so everyone gets a voice and everyone’s heard.” IMMIGRATION DIVISIONS When the conversation moved to the hot-button topic of immigration, views were more sharply divided. Imagining what he’d do in government, Alex said he’d focus on “lowering taxes and stopping illegal immigrants from coming over.” “Because we’re paying France billions just to stop them, but they’re not doing anything,” he said. “And also it’s spending all the tax money on them to give them home meals, stuff like that.” In July, Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron unveiled a “one in, one out” pilot program to tackle illegal migration, although it’s enjoyed limited success so far and has generated some embarrassing headlines for the British government. Hanh said she’d been taught at school that it’s important to show empathy, but noted some people are angry about taxes going to support asylum seekers. Chris and Sarah both said asylum seekers are fleeing war, and seemed uneasy at the thought of drawing a hard line. Holly said she wants “racism” — which she believes is tied to conversations about immigration — to end. “I often hear a lot of racism [at school] and prejudice-type stuff … I often hear the N word. People don’t understand how bad that word is and how it can affect people,” she said. “They [migrants] have moved away from something to get safer, and then they get more hate.” Hanh said she is seeing more anti-immigration messages on social media, such as “why are you in my country, get out,” she said. “Then that’s being dragged into school by students who are seeing this … it’s coming into school environment, which is not good for learning.” NEWS SNOOZE Look away now, journalists: The group largely agreed that the news is boring. Some listen in when their parents have the television or radio on, but all said they get most of their news from social media or the odd push alert. Asked why they think the news is so dull, Hanh — who plays field hockey and enjoys art at school — said: “It just looks really boring to look at, there are no cool pictures or any funny things or fun colors. It just doesn’t look like something I’d be interested in.” She said she prefers social media: “With TikTok, you can interact with stuff and look at comments and see other people’s views, [but with the news] you just see evidence and you see all these facts. Sometimes it can be about really disturbing stuff like murder and stuff like that. If it’s going to pop up with that, I don’t really want to watch that.” These children aren’t alone in pointing to social media as their preferred source of news. A 2025 report by communications watchdog Ofcom found that 57 percent of 12-15-year-olds consume news on social media, with TikTok being the most commonly used platform, followed by YouTube and then Instagram. Sophie isn’t convinced that the news is for her. “Sometimes if my parents put it on the TV and it’s about something that’s really bad that’s happened, then I’ll definitely look at it,” she said. “But otherwise, I think it would probably be more for older people because they would like to watch basically whatever’s on the TV because they can’t really be bothered to change the channel.”

A group of 19 EU countries is pushing the European Commission to take a tougher line on migration beyond the bloc’s borders, arguing that last week’s EU deal on asylum and returns has changed the political weather in Brussels. In particular, they want the Commission to increase cooperation with non-EU countries to tackle what they see as unacceptably high levels of migration into the bloc. “The conclusion of the negotiations on the recent legislative proposals … is an important step,” the ministers of home and foreign affairs of the signatory countries write in a joint letter seen exclusively by POLITICO, adding that “the further development of a coherent EU strategy on the external dimension of migration, including new and innovative solutions, is paramount.” The reference to recent proposals refers to the package agreed on Dec. 8, which includes sweeping new rules to reform how the EU deals with migration, including setting up asylum processing centers in non-EU countries. Governments want the EU executive to put even more weight on the external dimension of migration by cooperating with countries of origin and countries they travel through to stop them reaching the EU. That means accelerating what they called “innovative solutions,” a catch-all term for measures such as so-called return hubs and new partnerships with non-EU countries, which supporters say could make EU migration policy more effective. The appeal is set to feature prominently at this week’s informal “migration breakfast” ahead of Thursday’s EU summit. The breakfasts, launched in June 2024 by Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen and the Netherlands’ Dick Schoof, have become highly influential on the narrative around migration in Brussels. In their letter, the ministers call for expanding the use of “new and innovative solutions” to counter irregular migration and for stronger cooperation among EU agencies, international organizations, and EU countries. While the letter avoids naming specific models, it references tools already embedded in EU law, such as “safe third country arrangements and return hubs,” and calls for their operationalization through partnerships along migration routes. The model of “return hubs,” to which individuals whose asylum claims have been rejected can be sent, has been championed by Italy. The country has built and operates — in a different legal context — two such facilities in Albania, which are expected to serve as the first concrete implementation of this model from mid-2026. Money is a central concern. The signatories argue that the innovative solutions will remain theoretical without clearer funding pathways. “The efficient use of financial resources is necessary for the establishment and operationalisation of innovative forms of cooperation,” the letter states, urging the Commission to issue guidelines on how existing and future EU funds can be mobilized. The ministers also want EU agencies to be more deeply involved, including a possible expansion of the role of the border agency Frontex. They call on the Commission and agencies to explore “necessary legislative and policy changes,” including, “where relevant, revision of the mandate and competences of Frontex, to ensure effective support and sufficient capacity” in cooperation with third countries. Beyond institutions and funding, the letter makes a clear political ask for a single EU voice. “A common narrative and joint diplomatic outreach by Member States and the EEAS … is necessary,” the ministers write, urging Brussels to hard-wire migration into summits and dialogues with partner countries.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called late Tuesday for a reform of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) as European nations move to get tougher on migration. “The current asylum framework was created for another era. In a world with mass mobility, yesterday’s answers do not work. We will always protect those fleeing war and terror — but the world has changed and asylum systems must change with it,” Frederiksen and Starmer wrote in a joint op-ed for The Guardian. “Today, millions are on the move not only because their lives are in danger, but because they want a better future. If we fail to take account of this, we would fail the needs of genuine refugees and the communities that for too long have been asked to absorb rapid change,” they added. Their appeal takes on added significance after the EU overhauled its migration rules on Monday, which made Denmark’s tough approach to migration a standard for the bloc. Establishment political groups across Europe are struggling to deal with the rise of anti-migration parties, which have used the issue as electoral rocket fuel in recent years. Europe’s justice and home affairs ministers signed off on new policies that let EU countries deport unsuccessful asylum applicants, establish offshore processing centers and create removal hubs beyond EU territory. The U.K. overhauled its asylum system in a similar direction last month. Representatives from around 40 of the 46 Council of Europe members are expected to attend a meeting Wednesday on migration in Strasbourg. The Council of Europe — the continent’s leading human rights organization — wants to counter the narrative that the ECHR is standing in the way of action on migration, including returns. In May, 9 countries signed a letter calling for the ECHR — which came into force in 1953 — to be reinterpreted to allow migrants who commit crimes to be expelled more easily. “This is our chance to bring that discussion where it belongs — within the walls of the Council of Europe — and to chart a way forward,” the organization’s boss Alain Berset told POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook. Zoya Sheftalovich contributed to this report.

BRUSSELS — After years of being treated as an outlier for its hardline stance on migration, Denmark says it has finally brought the rest of the EU on board with its tough approach. Europe’s justice and home affairs ministers on Monday approved new measures allowing EU countries to remove failed asylum seekers, set up processing centers overseas and create removal hubs outside their borders — measures Copenhagen has long advocated. The deal was “many years in the making,” said Rasmus Stoklund, Denmark’s center-left minister for integration who has driven migration negotiations during his country’s six-month presidency of the Council of the EU. Stoklund told POLITICO that when he first started working on the migration brief a decade ago in the Danish parliament, his fellow left-wingers around the bloc viewed his government’s position as so egregious that “other social democrats wouldn’t meet with me.” Over the last few years, “there’s been a huge change in perception,” Stoklund said. When the deal was done Monday, the “sigh of relief” from ministers and their aides was palpable, with people embracing one another and heaping praise on both the Danish brokers and Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission that put forward the initial proposal, according to a diplomat who was in the room. Sweden’s Migration Minister Johan Forssell, a member of the conservative Moderate party, told POLITICO Monday’s deal was vital “to preserve, like, any public trust at all in the migration system today … we need to show that the system is working.” Stockholm, which has in the past prided itself on taking a liberal approach to migration, has recently undergone a Damascene conversion to the Danish model, implementing tough measures to limit family reunification, tightening rules around obtaining Swedish citizenship, and limiting social benefits for new arrivals. Forssell said the deal was important because “many people” around Europe criticize the EU over inaction on migration “because they cannot do themselves what [should be done] on the national basis.” The issue, he said, is a prime example of “why there must be a strong European Union.” SEALING THE DEAL Monday’s deal — whose impact will “hopefully be quite dramatic,” Stoklund said — comes two years after the EU signed off on a new law governing asylum and migration, which must be implemented by June. Voters have “made clear to governments all over the European Union, that they couldn’t accept that they weren’t able to control the access to their countries,” Stoklund said. “Governments have realized that if they didn’t take this question seriously, then [voters] would back more populist movements that would take it seriously — and use more drastic measures in order to find new solutions.” Stockholm has recently undergone a Damascene conversion to the Danish model, implementing tough measures to limit family reunification, tightening rules around obtaining Swedish citizenship, and limiting social benefits for new arrivals. | Henrick Montgomery/EPA Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner, the Danish Council presidency and ministers were at pains to point out that Monday’s agreement showed the EU could get deals done. After the last EU election in 2024, the new Commission’s “first task” was to “bring our European house in order,” Brunner said. “Today we’re showing that Europe can actually deliver and we delivered quite a lot.” WHAT’S NEW The ministers backed new rules to detain and deport migrants, including measures that would allow the bloc and individual countries to cut deals to set up migration processing hubs in other nations, regardless of whether the people being moved there have a connection with those countries. Ministers supported changes that will allow capitals to reject applications if asylum seekers, prior to first entering the EU, could have received international protection in a non-EU country the bloc deems safe, and signed off on a common list of countries of origin considered safe. Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia are on that latter list, as are countries that are candidates to join the EU. But the deal also leaves room for exceptions — such as Ukraine, which is at war. Asylum seekers won’t automatically have the right to remain in the EU while they appeal a ruling that their refuge application was inadmissible. The next step for the measures will be negotiations with the European Parliament, once it has decided its position on the proposals. Max Griera contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS — EU countries on Monday signed off on sweeping new plans to reform how the bloc deals with migration. The measures, approved at a meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers in Brussels, will give capitals the power to remove people who don’t have the right to live and work in the bloc, to set up asylum processing centers overseas and to create removals hubs outside their borders. It comes amid growing public unrest over migration, in a move designed to counter the far right and overhaul the way capitals deal with new arrivals. “We are at a turning point of the European migration and asylum reform,” European Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner told POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook. “These are all measures that will help process claims more effectively and reduce pressure on asylum systems. And they all send the same signal: Europe will not tolerate any abuse of its systems.” The draft legislation includes a new “solidarity pool” in which countries — apart from those already facing high levels of migratory pressure — will be asked to resettle migrants or pay for other countries to support them. In addition, a new list of “safe countries” has been drawn up, from which asylum applications will be rapidly rejected unless there are extenuating circumstances. Additional rules, still to be agreed by ministers on Monday, would mean countries are able to set up asylum processing centers in non-EU countries, as well as “return hubs” from where people whose claims are unsuccessful can be removed. The changes have been pushed by Denmark, which holds the six-month rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, with the country’s center-left government setting out a hard-nosed approach to irregular migration both at home and in Brussels. “We have a very high influx of irregular migrants, and our European countries are under pressure,” said Danish Minister for Immigration and Integration Rasmus Stoklund. “Thousands are drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or are abused along the migratory routes, while human smugglers earn fortunes.” “This shows that the current system creates unhealthy incentive structures and a strong pull-factor, which are hard to break.” There had been dissent from countries such as Spain, which worry the new rules go too far, and Slovakia, which claimed they don’t go far enough. Despite that, negotiators managed to strike a deal before the legislative agenda grinds to a halt during the winter break. “To get the migration challenge under control has been a key demand from European leaders for years. For many, this is perceived as paramount to keep the trust of European citizens,” said one European diplomat, granted anonymity to speak frankly. Migration is high on the list of public priorities and has been capitalized on by right-wing parties in elections from France to Poland in recent years. In her State of the Union address in September, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said tackling irregular migration was key to maintaining the perception “that democracy provides solutions to people’s legitimate concerns.” “The people of Europe have proven their willingness to help those fleeing war and persecution. However, frustration grows when they feel our rules are being disregarded,” von der Leyen said. The EU has also come under fire from U.S. President Donald Trump in recent days, whose administration claimed in an explosive new strategy document that Brussels’ migration policies “are transforming the continent and creating strife.”

LONDON — In February Britain’s cash-strapped Labour government cut international development spending — and barely anyone made a noise. The center-left party announced it would slice the country’s spending on aid down to only 0.3 percent of gross domestic income — from 0.5 percent — in order to fund a hike in defense spending. MPs, aid experts and officials have told POLITICO that the scale of the cuts is on a par with — or even exceeding — those of both the previous center-right Conservative government or the United States under Donald Trump. This leaves Britain’s development arm, once globally envied as a vehicle for poverty alleviation, a shadow of its former self. The move — prompted by U.S. demands to up its NATO spending, and mirroring the Trump administration’s move to gut its own USAID development budget — shocked Labour’s progressive MPs, supporters and backers in the aid sector. But unlike attempted cuts to British welfare spending, the real-world backlash was muted, with the resignation of Britain’s development minister prompting little further dissent or change in policy. There was no mutiny in parliament, and only limited domestic and international condemnation outside of an aid sector torn between making their voices heard — and keeping in Whitehall’s good books over slices of the shrinking pie. Some fear a return grab over the aid budget could still be on the cards — but that the government will find that there is little left to cut. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, warned that, instead of “reversing the cuts by the previous Conservative government, Labour has compounded them, and lives will be lost as a result.” “These cuts will further tarnish the U.K.’s reputation as it continues to be known as an unreliable global partner, breaking Labour’s manifesto commitment,” he warned. “The Conservatives started the fire, but instead of putting it out, this Labour government threw petrol on it.” ‘IT WAS THE PERFECT TIME TO DO IT’ When Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the cut to international aid — a bid to save over £6 billion by 2027 — Labour MPs, including those who worked in the sector before being elected, were notably silent. The move followed a 2021 Conservative cut to aid spending — from 0.7 percent in the Tory brand-rebuilding David Cameron years down to 0.5 percent. At the time, Labour MPs had met that Tory cut with howls of outrage. This time it was different. Some were genuinely shocked, while others feared retribution from a Downing Street that had flexed its muscles at MPs who rebelled on what they saw as points of conscience. “No one was expecting it, so there was no opportunity to campaign around it,” said one Labour MP. “Literally none of us had any idea it was coming.” Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank. | Daniel Slim/AFP via Getty Images The same MP noted that there are around 50 Labour MPs from the new 2024 intake who had some form of development background before coming into parliament. Yet they were put “completely under the cosh” by Downing Street and government whips. “It was the perfect time to do it,” the MP said. A number of MPs who might have been vocal have since been made parliamentary private secretaries — the most junior government role. “They have basically gagged the people who would be most likely to be outspoken on it,” the MP above said. The department’s ministerial team is now more likely to be loyal to the Starmer project. “I just felt hurt, and wounded. We were stunned. None of us saw it coming,” said one MP from the 2024 cohort, adding: “They priced in that backlash wouldn’t come.” But they added: “If we were culpable so were NGOs, too inward-looking and focused on peripheral issues.” The lack of outcry from MPs would, however, seem to put them largely in step with the wider British public. Polling and focus groups from think tank More in Common suggest that despite the majority of voters thinking spending on international aid is the right thing to do in a variety of circumstances, only around 20 percent of the public think the budget was cut too much.  The second new-intake Labour MP quoted above said the policy was therefore an “easy thing to sell on the doorstep,” and “in my area, there’s not going to be shouting from the rooftops to spend more money on aid.” DIMINISHED AND DEMORALIZED The cuts to aid come at a time when Britain’s Foreign Office is undergoing a radical overhaul. While the department describes its plans as “more agile,” staff, programs and entire areas of focus are all ripe for cuts to save money. The department is looking to make redundancies for around 25 percent of staff based in the U.K. MPs have voiced concern that development staff will be among the first to make the jump due to the government’s shift away from aid. The department insists that no final decisions have been taken over the size and shape of the organization. Major cuts are expected across work on education, conflict, and WASH (Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene.) The government’s Integrated Security Fund — which funds key counter-terror programs abroad — is also looking to scale back work abroad which does not have a clear link to Britain’s national security. The British Council — a key soft-power organization viewed as helping combat Chinese and Russian reach across the world — told MPs it is in “real financial peril” and would be cutting its presence in 35 of the 97 countries it operates. The BBC’s World Service is seeing similar cuts to its global reach. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), the watchdog for aid spending, is also not safe from the ax as the government continues its bonfire of regulators. The FCDO did not refute the expected pathway of cuts. Published breakdowns of spending allocations for the next three years are due to be published in the coming months, an official said. A review of Britain’s development and diplomacy policies conducted by economist Minouche Shafik — who has since been moved into Downing Street — sits discarded in the department. The government refuses to publish its findings. Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. | Pool Photo by Adrian Dennis via Getty Images The second 2024 intake MP quoted earlier in the piece said that following the U.S. decisions on aid and foreign policy “there was an expectation that the U.K., as a responsible international partner, as a leader on a lot of this stuff, would fill the gap to some extent, and then take more of a leadership role on it, and we’ve done the opposite.” NOTHING LEFT TO CUT Aid spending was spared a repeat visit by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her government-wide budget last month — but that hasn’t stopped MPs worrying about a second bite. While few MPs or those in the aid sector feel Britain will ever return to the lofty heights of its 0.7 percent commitment, they predict there will be harder resistance if the government comes back for more. “I don’t think they’re going to try and do it again, as there’s no money left,” the second 2024 intake MP said. But they pointed out that a large portion of the remaining aid budget is spent on in-country costs such as accommodation for asylum seekers. Savings identified from the asylum budget would be sent back to the Treasury, rather than put back into the aid budget, they noted. Remaining spending is largely mandatory contributions to organizations such as the World Bank or the United Nations and would, they warned, involve “getting rid of international agreements and chopping up longstanding influence at big international institutions that we are one of the leading people in.” The United Nations is already facing its own funding crisis as it struggles to adjust to the global downturn in aid spending. British diplomat Tom Fletcher — who leads the UN’s humanitarian response — said earlier this year that the organization has been “forced into a triage of human survival,” adding: “The math is cruel, and the consequences are heartbreaking.” The government still has a commitment to returning to 0.7 percent of GNI “as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow.” The tests for this ramp back up were set out four years ago. Britain must not be borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt must be falling. The last two budgets have forecast that the government will not meet these tests in this parliament. FARAGE CIRCLES In the meantime, Labour’s opponents feel emboldened to go further. Both the Conservatives and Reform UK have said that they would further cut the aid budget. The Tories have vowed to slice it down to 0.1 percent of GNI, while Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is eyeing fresh cuts of at least by £7-8 billion a year. A third 2024 Labour MP said that there was a degree of pressure among some colleagues to match the Conservatives’ 0.1 percent pledge. Though no country has gone as far as Uganda’s Idi Amin in setting up a “save Britain fund” for its “former colonial masters,” Britain’s departure on international aid gives space for other countries wanting to step up to further their own foreign policy aims. The space vacated by Britain and America has prompted warnings that China will step in, while countries newer to international development such as Gulf states could try and fill the void. Many of these nations are unlikely to ever fund the same projects as the U.K. and the U.S., forcing NGOs to look to alternate donors such as philanthropists to fund their work. “There’ll be a big, big gap, and it won’t be completely filled,” the second new intake MP said. An FCDO spokesperson said the department was undergoing “an unprecedented transformation,” and added: “We remain resolutely committed to international development and have been clear we must modernize our approach to development to reflect the changing global context. We will bring U.K. expertise and investment to where it is needed most, including global health solutions and humanitarian support.”

Wies De Graeve is the executive director of Amnesty International Belgium’s Flemish branch. Tomorrow, Seán Binder will stand trial before the Mytilene Court of Appeals in Lesvos, Greece for his work as a volunteer rescuer, helping those in distress and at risk of drowning at sea. Alongside 23 other defendants, he faces criminal charges including membership in a criminal organization, money laundering and smuggling, with the risk of up to 20 years in prison if convicted. I first met Seán in 2019. A bright, articulate Irish activist in his twenties, he was our guest at the Belgian launch of Amnesty International’s annual end-of-year campaign. And there, he shared his equally inspiring yet shocking story of blatant injustice, as he and others were being prosecuted for saving lives. Two years earlier, Seán had traveled to Lesvos as a volunteer, joining a local search-and-rescue NGO to patrol the coastline for small boats in distress and provide first aid to those crossing from Turkey to Greece. Since 2015, the war in Syria has forced countless individuals to flee their homes and seek safety in Europe via dangerous routes — including the perilous journey across the Aegean Sea. In 2017 alone, more than 3,000 people were reported dead or missing while attempting to cross the Mediterranean, and when authorities failed to step in, many volunteers from across Europe did so instead. Seán was one of them. He did what any of us would hope to do in his position: save lives and help people. Yet, in 2018, he was arrested by Greek authorities and held in pretrial detention for over 100 days before being charged with a range of crimes alongside other humanitarian workers. These charges aim to portray those who help people on the move as criminals. And it’s part of a trend sweeping across Europe that’s criminalizing solidarity. In Malta, three teenagers from West Africa stand accused of helping to bring more than 100 people rescued at sea to safety, and are facing charges that carry a lifelong sentence. In Italy, ships operated by search-and-rescue organizations are being impounded. And in France, mountain guides have faced prosecution for assisting people at the border with Italy. European governments are not only failing people seeking protection, they’re also punishing those who try to fill that dangerous gap. I met Seán again in 2021 and 2023, both times outside the courthouse in Mytilene on Lesvos. In 2023, the lesser misdemeanor charges against him and the other foreign defendants — forgery, espionage and the unlawful use of radio frequencies — were dropped. Then, in 2024, the rest of the defendants were acquitted of those same charges. While leaving the courthouse that day, still facing the more serious felony charges along with the other 23 aid workers, Seán said: “We want justice. Today, there has been less injustice, but no justice.” As Amnesty International, we’ve been consistently calling for these charges to be dropped. The U.N. and many human rights organizations have also expressed serious concerns about the case, while thousands across Europe and around the world have stood by Seán’s side in defense of solidarity with migrants and refugees, signing petitions and writing letters. This trial should set off alarms not only for Europe’s civil society but for any person’s ability to act according to their conscience. It isn’t just Seán who is on trial here, it’s solidarity itself. The criminalization of people showing compassion for those compelled to leave their homes because of war, violence or other hardships must stop. This trial should set off alarms not only for Europe’s civil society but for any person’s ability to act according to their conscience. | Manolis Lagoutaris/AFP via Getty Images Meanwhile, a full decade after Syrians fleeing war began arriving on Europe’s shores in search of safety and protection, Europe’s leaders need to reflect. They need to learn from people like Seán instead of prosecuting them. And instead of focusing on deterrence, they need to ensure the word “asylum,” from the Greek “asylon,” still means a place of refuge or sanctuary for those seeking safety in our region. People who save lives should be supported, not criminalized. This week, six years after our first encounter, Seán and I will once again meet in front of the Mytilene courthouse as his trial resumes. I will be there in solidarity, representing the thousands who have been demanding that these charges be dropped. I hope, with all my heart, to see him finally receive the justice he is entitled to. Humanity must win.

BERLIN — Alex Bruesewitz, an adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, told leaders of the far-right Alternative for Germany, or AfD — a party labeled extremist by German authorities — that he sees them as “bold visionaries” shaping the country’s future. Speaking to a room packed with AfD parliamentarians and supporters in Berlin on Wednesday night, Bruesewitz declared that MAGA conservatives and members of Germany’s rising far right are united in a common fight along with other nationalist forces around the world against “Marxists” and “globalists” that he framed as “a spiritual war for the soul of our nations.” Bruesewitz, a social media guru credited with helping Trump return to the White House, is now a senior adviser to Never Surrender, Trump’s leadership political action committee. His speech to AfD parliamentarians comes at a time when German far-right figures are increasingly looking for legitimacy and support from MAGA Republicans in the U.S., particularly for what they frame as a struggle against political persecution and censorship at home. It’s something of a turnabout for AfD politicians, who have historically exhibited a strong anti-American streak, viewing the U.S. as having infringed on Germany’s sovereignty in the postwar era and seeking instead to build closer relations with Russia. But since Trump’s return to the White House, AfD leaders have made a concerted effort to get close to MAGA Republicans. Beatrix von Storch, an AfD politician who has been at the forefont of the party’s efforts to build connections with MAGA Republicans, said Bruesewitz’s visit was about “reaching out to be closer to our American friends.” Bruesewitz echoed that message during his talk on “the global battle for truth,” as the event was dubbed. “We are in this together,” he said. “The globalists fear united patriots more than anything.” WHO’S THE ANTI-DEMOCRAT? The AfD is now the strongest opposition party in the German parliament, and in many recent polls has surpassed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s ruling conservatives. The party’s growing popularity comes despite the fact that earlier this year, Germany’s federal domestic intelligence agency, which is tasked with monitoring groups deemed to be antidemocratic, declared the AfD to be an extremist organization. This designation fueled debate among mainstream German politicians about whether the party ought to be banned under provisions of the German Constitution designed to prevent a repeat of the Nazi rise to power. Centrist parties in Germany have so far refused to form national coalitions with the AfD, maintaining a so-called firewall around the far right that has been in place since shortly after World War II. But AfD politicians argue that German mainstream politicians are the true antidemocratic forces and are seeking to suppress the will of the German people through the state apparatus. They have often found a sympathetic ear for that argument in MAGA circles. When Germany’s domestic intelligence agency declared the AfD to be extremist, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the move “tyranny in disguise.” During the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, U.S. Vice President JD Vance urged mainstream politicians in Europe to protect free speech rights of anti-immigration parties and to knock down the “firewalls” that shut out far-right parties from government. The AfD is now the strongest opposition party in the German parliament, and in many recent polls has surpassed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s ruling conservatives. | Clemens Bilan/EPA AfD politicians have repeatedly visited Washington in recent months to make the case that they are the victims of political persecution and to solicit American support. Last week, German right-wing influencer and AfD ally Naomi Seibt said she had applied for asylum in the U.S., claiming to be “facing persecution” in Germany for her views and saying she is the target of “severe government and intelligence surveillance and harassment.” LOST IN TRANSLATION During his Berlin speech, Bruesewitz suggested MAGA Republicans had faced a similar experience of persecution in the U.S., likening criminal indictments against Trump and past social media deplatforming of right-wing figures to the same kind of leftist, anti-democratic suppression AfD leaders claim to be facing. “As I sit and watch what’s happening all over Europe with the censorship concerns, the same thing happened in America,” said Bruesewitz. “You can let it happen here. You have to protect free speech,” he added to a round of enthusiastic applause. Not all aspects of Bruesewitz’s message were met with equal enthusiasm. His defense of Trump’s tariffs, which have hit Germany’s export-oriented industries particularly hard, did not win applause. Bruesewitz also repeatedly invoked passages from the Bible and called on Germans to embrace a distinctly American brand of Christian nationalism that, while embraced by some AfD politicians, is largely alien to Germans, who are broadly less pious. At one point, Bruesewitz called faith “our greatest weapon,” and said the killing of conservative American influencer Charlie Kirk had made him realize that conservative nationalists are not just engaged in a political battle, but rather a “spiritual war” that extends beyond the U.S. “The forces arrayed against us aren’t just ideological opponents, they’re manifestations of evil, seeking to extinguish the light of faith, family and freedom,” Bruesewitz said. “This spiritual battle isn’t confined to the United States. Oh, no. Germany and America may be separated by thousands of miles of ocean, but we face the same exact enemies, the same threats, the same insidious forces trying to tear us down.”

Prime minister’s questions: a shouty, jeery, very occasionally useful advert for British politics. Here’s what you need to know from the latest session in POLITICO’s weekly run-through. What they sparred about: Asylum seekers and prison. It was a duel of the deputies as Keir Starmer’s second in command, David Lammy, took on Shadow Defence Secretary, James Cartlidge, while the PM hung out at COP30 in Brazil. The deputy PM admitted he had expected to face Shadow Justice Secretary (and wannabe Tory leader) Robert Jenrick. The hardest word: Cartlidge, admittedly not the best known figure outside Westminster, referenced an ITV News interview with the father of the 14-year-old girl who had been sexually assaulted by Ethiopian national Hadush Kebatu … the man who was mistakenly freed for 48 hours. “Will he apologise to the family concerned?” Moment of contrition: Lammy insisted he’d already obliged with that request. “In the debate, of course, I said sorry for the anxiety caused whilst Kebatu was at large, and I repeat that.” Who knew a direct question could get a direct answer? Not so fast: The shadow defence secretary made clear Kebatu’s quick capture wasn’t good enough. Cartlidge wanted Lammy, the justice secretary after all, to guarantee that “no other asylum-seeking offender has been accidentally let out of prison” since the mistaken release. Answer, er, came there none. The justice secretary slammed Cartlidge’s former tenure as a justice minister, “who let our prisons get into that state in the first place.” This may be why: Just after their exchange, the Telegraph reported a manhunt was underway for an Algerian asylum seeker mistakenly released from HMP Wandsworth last week, but the Met Police was only informed on Tuesday. Hell yes, I’m tough enough: Aware that his question had gone unanswered, Cartlidge had another go, given how embarrassing Kebatu’s release was for the government. Lammy spoke about implementing the “toughest checks we have ever had in the prison system” and ripped into the “complicated system” introduced by, obvs, the Tories. Trappings of office: If at first you don’t succeed, try again — Cartlidge channeled interviewing legend Jeremy Paxman, no matter how awkward it became. “He’s the justice secretary. He’s responsible for the justice system. He needs to take responsibility,” the shadow defense secretary stressed. “Get a grip, man!” Lammy boomed back. “I know I’m the justice secretary. That’s why I’m at the despatch box.” Just wait till you get back to the MoJ … As per: There was the usual back and forth as Cartlidge continued probing and Lammy slammed his questioning efforts. “I spent 14 years in opposition, and I did a hell of a lot better than he has just done,” Lammy said, though MPs, hacks, and the public were left none the wiser until the Telegraph’s story broke. Six not out: Speaker Lindsay Hoyle originally went back to Cartlidge even after all six of the questions had been asked (if not answered). Much hilarity ensued as the Tory spokesperson briefly rose to the despatch box … before getting slapped down by the speaker. Admittedly, few people kept count, given it was the same question again and again. Helpful backbench intervention of the week: Erewash MP Adam Thompson praised the national minimum wage increase despite Tory and Reform UK’s opposition, asking whether any of Nigel Farage’s extra jobs paid below the minimum wage. Lammy, no changes here, took the bait and laid into the Reform UK chief’s outside earnings accordingly. Totally unscientific scores on the doors: Lammy 5/10. Cartlidge 6/10. Who knows whether Cartlidge had a tip-off about the Telegraph’s scoop, bringing yet more headaches for the government? Regardless, Lammy’s inability to provide certainty about mistaken releases became clearer after the revelation. Though Cartlidge didn’t specifically probe him on the manhunt, and incorrectly thought he had an extra question, pushing mistakenly released asylum seekers back up the news agenda has left ministers in a far weaker position.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz has a simple message for many of the hundreds of thousands of Syrians who found sanctuary in Germany during their country’s long and brutal civil war: It’s time to go back to Syria. In reality, it will be hard for Merz to compel a large share of the roughly one million Syrians living in Germany to leave. But under pressure from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, whose leaders vow to forcibly return Syrian refugees en masse, the chancellor is taking a harder line on Germany’s Syrian population, and says he’ll work with Syria’s president, former rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, to do so. “The civil war in Syria is over,” Merz said earlier this week. “There are now no longer any grounds for asylum in Germany, which means we can begin repatriating people.” Merz’s comments reflect his latest push to move his conservatives sharply to the right on the AfD’s signature issue of migration. Until now, the broad strategy doesn’t appear to have worked, with the AfD only rising in popularity and coming in slightly ahead of Merz’s conservatives in many recent polls. Merz is seeking to undo the legacy of one of his conservative predecessors as chancellor, Angela Merkel, whose generous asylum policies — particularly during the refugee crisis of 2015 — made Germany the prime European destination for Syrians and other migrant groups fleeing war and poverty. During Merkel’s tenure and beyond, hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees fled to Germany. Aside from Ukrainians, Syrians constitute the largest group of refugees now living in the country. Merz blames Merkel’s migration policies for enabling the rise of the AfD, now the largest opposition party in the German parliament. Over the summer, Merz said his conservatives were “trying to correct” Merkel’s past policies. His pledge to repatriate Syrians is one of his most direct efforts yet to do so. It also echoes similar recent efforts of his government to establish contact with Taliban officials to arrange deportations of Afghans living in Germany, beginning with those convicted of crimes. Human rights groups have sharply criticized those plans, saying returnees may be subject to harsh punishment and persecution in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Merz on Monday said he had invited al-Sharaa, a former al-Qaida member, to Berlin in order to discuss deportations of Syrians convicted of crimes. Merz also suggested that Syrians in Germany have a duty to return home to rebuild their war-torn country. “Without these people, reconstruction will not be possible,” Merz said. “Those in Germany who then refuse to return to the country can, of course, be deported in the near future.” ‘THEY MUST BE DEPORTED, WITH FORCE’ Merz’s deportation threat belies a far more complex reality on the ground. In the several years that many Syrians have lived in Germany, a large number have found jobs and become citizens. Some 287,000 Syrian citizens were working in Germany last year, and about 83,000 became German citizens. Despite the tough rhetoric, Merz has not said he will forcibly repatriate Syrians outside of those who have committed crimes — at least not yet. His government’s strategy for now appears to be to incentivize others to depart of their own accord. Yet experts say conditions in Syria are not stable and secure enough to allow for many of the millions of Syrians who have fled the country to return anytime soon. | Louai Beshara/Getty Images But his government may also choose to model steps taken in the 1990s, when some 320,000 Bosnians came to Germany, fleeing the Bosnian War. By the next decade, Germany had repatriated most of them. Yet experts say conditions in Syria are not stable and secure enough to allow for many of the millions of Syrians who have fled the country to return anytime soon. This is a point Merz’s own foreign minister and fellow conservative, Johann Wadephul, seemed to make during a visit to the ruins of a destroyed city near Damascus last week, where he said it would be hard for many Syrians to promptly return. “I have never personally seen such extensive destruction,” Wadephul said. “I could not have imagined it either. It is truly difficult for people to live with dignity here.” Those comments sparked pushback from within Merz’s conservative ranks as well as among far-right politicians. Germans had rebuilt their country after World War II, some argued — and now Syrians should do the same. “Germans also lent a hand, especially a large number of women, to rebuild the cities destroyed after World War II, so that cannot now be used as a fundamental argument to say that it is impossible to return to this country and rebuild it,” Stephan Mayer, a conservative parliamentarian from Bavaria told German newspaper Welt. The right-wing debate around Wadephul’s comments seems to have forced Merz to contradict his foreign minister and take a harder stance on Syrian repatriations — though it remains to be seen how far his government will really go, particularly as Merz is governing in coalition with the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), whose members advocate a softer approach. SPD leaders, in fact, praised Wadephul for what they saw as his realism on the matter. That’s one reason it will be hard for Merz to outcompete the AfD on his new tough-on-migration turn. AfD leaders, from a comfortable perch in the opposition, are taking a maximalist position, depicting Syrians in Germany — hundreds of thousands of whom continue to receive basic income support — as a unnecessary drain on German taxpayers for which only Merz’s conservatives can be held responsible. “We say quite clearly: Syrians must now have their protected status revoked because the reason for their fleeing no longer applies,” AfD co-leader Alice Weidel said on Tuesday. “These people must return to their homeland,” she went on. “If they do not leave voluntarily, they must be deported, with force.”