Over the years John has written post-election analysis of local and national elections both for Labour Party consumption and as journalistic content. This is his analysis of the outcome of May 3rd’s local elections.

Pictured above: John visited 24 constituencies with wards involved in the local elections in 2018. Pictured above with successful candidates, Ellie Emberson (19) one of Labour's youngest councillors (Minster Ward, Reading) and Lisa Mitchell (Portswood Ward, Southampton) an excellent gain for Labour.

The local elections on 3 May presented a mixed picture for Labour. There is nothing new in that and it is always advisable to remember that local elections are just that - local elections. Party leaders, though often a factor, are not themselves candidates, so it can be dangerous to conclude too much from any set of results. The strength of a local campaign, the prominence of specific local issues that can shift votes at the margin can make a big difference as can the strength of local political brands and the significance of the choices on offer - whether change one way or the other is a realistic option.

The next thing we should not, lest we forget, if we live in times where the political continuum has been disrupted by perception changing events - a third party involvement in Government, the emergence of populism, referenda and changes in the two large Parliamentary parties. This leads us, or should, to question whether the usual rules still apply to local elections. One of those rules tends to be that the first set of local elections that follow a General Election tend to be the ‘most local’ in the sequence - voters focus more on the local decision as national decisions are some years away and the most proximate national decision is the vote recently cast.

What happened in the South East?

In general Labour did a little better in the South East Region than its performance across the country. There were 28 Labour gains and eight losses - a net gain of 20 seats. That is a little better than a performance in line with those at local elections in recent years, but other than in a few outlying results didn’t stretch Labour representation beyond what we’ve come to expect since 2010.

Labour held control in Crawley with narrow victories in key wards, where it was defending a slim majority from a good result in 2014 - a well organised and no doubt very satisfying defence that sets up a platform for continued Labour control. Hastings remained solidly in Labour hands returning an unchanged outcome after a boundary adjustment. A great performance in Slough saw Labour win all but one seat while solid results in Reading and Oxford maintained control comfortably. Labour was less fortunate in Southampton - where three gains and three loses maintained a complicated position and a small overall majority while in Milton Keynes Labour slipped from parity with the Conservatives though the Council remains with no overall control.

UKIP Unwind

UKIP, as predicted lost almost all of the seats they were defending and the overwhelming bulk of its vote. This is highly amusing and very welcome though perhaps a little early to scatter their ashes

The UKIP vote, like any of the ‘not the other two’ votes (LD, SDP, Green) has different motivations in different places. When UKIP first came to notice it took its vote from the Conservative Party and made most progress in Conservative areas – most typically rural/semi-rural parts of deep blue seats. That changed almost immediately David Cameron announces his cunning plan for a referendum which happened to coincide with the biting of public service cuts and falling living standards. UKIP then began to cut more substantially into the Labour vote. Strange though it may seem UKIP even gained support from the LibDems where it inherited the franchise for ‘beating the other lot’ from either Labour or Conservative and, similarly, benefitted from negative tactical votes in some areas.

Not surprisingly then, the unwind of the UKIP vote helps different parties in different places and the unwind in the South substantially helps the Tories. We shouldn’t forget that initially the drift to UKIP helped Labour win seats by shaving the Tory vote. When the UKIP vote unwinds its no surprise that the opposite happens. The mistake was not to understand the power and appeal of nationalism in times of crisis.

The last and the next general election

Early results can deceive on local election nights. Some of the most disappointing Labour performances nationwide were early in the evening, which balanced out as the night went on. However, there are still clear and continuing trends which present as fragments of the General Election result last June.

In Milton Keynes, Reading West, Southampton Itchen, Crawley and to a lesser degree Hastings Labour found it more difficult to produce convincing results that suggest these constituencies will with one more heave deliver five bottoms to the green benches.

Meanwhile in the contrasting demographics of Southampton Test, Oxford, Reading East, Slough and Portsmouth South as well as ‘greater Brighton’ Labour moved onwards and upwards.

Currently Labour undoubtedly has appeal to particular segments of the electorate. The challenge remains as ever that, on their own, those segments are insufficient to deliver a Labour Government with a working majority. The challenge for Labour remains to build a coalition of political support that can deliver an electoral and social majority.

Politics and Organisation

Some of the gains may have lessons. Victories that are expected – established marginals that are worked year after year are often victories of organisation as much as politics, especially in low turnout elections.

Such organisation undoubtedly helped successfully to defend many of Labours most vulnerable seats. Labour gains beyond the expected are rarely about organisation. They frequently rely on a strong political message that chimes locally and is built upon genuine community involvement, building around local issues and presenting consistent messages through multiple channels. In other words by doing politics and spotting opportunities to progress.

Developing the Labour Party as a genuine community-rooted political organisation that can engage locally rather than hand out canvass scripts and regurgitate national messages has never been a priority whoever has been running the show. The challenge of re-engagement with essential sections of the electorate is to do exactly that. Developing genuine local strategies, responding to genuine local concern and becoming advocates for place and part of what local political parties should be about - it is also the way to win locally when times are tough.

This week the EU’s Budget Committee held a public hearing on the EU Budget and the Paris Climate agreement. It was an opportunity for MEPs to question the EU Commission, Court of Auditors, the European Investment Bank and other experts on the effectiveness of the Budget and the EU’s intention to put an increasing proportion of the budget to work addressing climate change.

In a few days, the European Commission will unveil its proposal for the European Union’s (EU) next long-term budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-27. It is important that the proposal is ever more ambitious in tackling climate change, protecting the environment and biodiversity.

The EU has played an instrumental role in pushing forward international climate change negotiations such as the Paris climate agreement. EU laws were crucial in cleaning up British beaches and bathing waters. It was the EU that took the British government to court for failing to enforce rules on air pollution. Gone are the days of the UK being the ‘dirty man Europe’, an achievement very much connected to the UK’s EU membership.

While the EU has undoubtedly also played an important role in spearheading climate and eco-friendly policies, the challenges in these areas are huge and there is far more to do.

Here are six things the EU and its member states could immediately do to improve the environmental and climate impact of their spending:

1) Making the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) greener

Although the CAP as percentage of the EU budget has been falling in recent years, it is still the largest single spending item and accounts for 38% of the EU budget. Agriculture is one of the main causes of climate change and therefore must play an important role in finding a solution.

Despite many reforms of the CAP to address climate, biodiversity and environmental concerns, there is still a long way to go to achieve a really green CAP. The ‘greening the CAP’ payments are meant to rewarding them for taking care of the environment. However the EU auditors in their recent assessment concluded the scheme is “not yet environmentally effective”. In the next round of funding the EU needs to ensure that climate incentives are not simply income support for farmers by another name.

2) Supporting the transformation of the transport sector to zero emission vehicles

The transformation of the transport sector toward zero emission vehicles is well under way. However the infrastructure implications are great. Widespread electric vehicles will place new demands on power distribution and will require major investment in power networks. The budget, mainly through the EU’s Cohesion and Connecting Europe funds, will need to be able to respond effectively during the next MFF.

3) Introducing a ‘Just Transition Fund’

The EU needs to transform itself into a sustainable low-carbon economy. However, the change to renewable energies should ensure that communities built on extractive industries benefit from the change. This is why my Labour colleague Theresa Griffin and I tabled an amendment to the Parliament’s report on the next MFF, calling for the introduction of a ‘Just Transition Fund’. This fund should focus on the creation of high quality, sustainable jobs together with retraining and new skills in clean processes and technologies, and enhancing social protection schemes. To be successful the fund will need to be backed by a coherent industrial policy and long term backing for emerging industries. Retail parks and distributions centres will not offer the kind of jobs that can effectively sustain communities in moving beyond coal.

4) Expanding the LIFE programme

LIFE is the only financial instrument in the EU budget exclusively dedicated to the environment, climate and biodiversity. Currently it is only 0.3 % of the EU budget. It should be extended, including spend on Natura 2000, to at least 1% of the EU budget.

5) Strengthening conditionalities in cohesion funding

It is time to ensure that the EU’s cohesion funding, the second largest budget area after agriculture, delivers on climate change. New conditions need to be brought to bear to ensure that projects genuinely comply with climate action requirements and funding of projects that increase climate damage need to be phased out.

6. The member states need to pitch in

The EU budget is comparatively small. It stands at about 1% of the 28 EU countries' gross domestic product (GDP) – the total value of all goods and services produced in the EU. By contrast, the budgets of EU countries represent 46,3 % of GDP on average. This shows that the EU budget cannot address this major global challenge alone - member states will need to commit to climate action either themselves or by committing to joint action.

The next MFF is an important opportunity to help achieve the EU’s and international climate and environmental goals. We and our planet cannot afford to miss it.

The Good Friday Agreement is 20 years old. It delivered peace and stability in Northern Ireland because it enabled both of the traditions in Ireland to co-exist and to pursue their aims through the political process.

Peace replaced war because war was unwinnable and because - after 30 years, 3600 deaths and 30,000 either injured or imprisoned - the population had become weary of civil strife. If you are under the age of 45 it is hard to have a clear memory of The Troubles and if you are much less than 60 memories of the IRA campaign in England during the 1970s will by hazy. And while everyone with any sense wants to leave The Troubles firmly in the past, if we forget entirely then we run a serious risk of revisiting them. This is why we should always commemorate the end of conflicts, not the start.

The border between the six counties of Ulster that form Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was drawn with divisive intent, was divisive in practice, and became a focus for conflict. The removal of the border under the rules of the EU single market has enabled trade and made the lives of those who live nearby sensible - be it on crossing the border to see family members, or for hospital treatment, or simply to go to a football match. Like many of the land borders elsewhere in the EU, it really doesn’t matter. Because it doesn’t matter, the Republican tradition can live with it. Because it is theoretical, the Unionist tradition can live with it. Making it matter again would be a disaster.

Nobody in Ireland wants to go back to violence - least of all many of those who were directly involved in the last conflict. But in this respect it is important to understand that The Troubles did not start with mass demonstrations about civil rights. They started with a single shot*, they escalated through the dangerous talk of opportunist populists and sectarian revenge killings, they grew into vigilante groups ‘protecting their communities’ and civil disorder into which the British Army was drawn, first as peacekeepers but after a series of catastrophic mistakes as combatants in an unwinnable guerrilla war. The great majority didn’t want it then and nobody wants it now, but to pretend it could not happen is reckless and ignores the lessons of what has gone before. 20 years in the history of Ireland is no time at all.

So, in its practical effect, Brexit is a clear, if not immediate, threat to the peace of Ireland. Theresa May’s coalition deal with the DUP does what the Good Friday Agreement had carefully ruled out - it gives a single party within one of the traditions an effective veto over any progress. Not only has the DUP chosen to ignore the view of a very large majority of the population of Northern Ireland in the June 2016 referendum, but it also chooses to ignore the view of the same population on the Good Friday Agreement itself. Yet while they claim to be loyal to the United Kingdom, they cling to a set of unequal and discriminatory laws unique to the six counties on legal abortion and same sex marriage, driven by their sectarian fundamentalism.

In the European Parliament the protection of the Good Friday Agreement and maintaining an open border if Britain finally leaves the EU is of paramount importance. The EU is a peace project and, with the support of Labour MEPs, is committed to defending, throughout the Brexit process, the mechanism that has made the miracle of peaceful co-existence in the north of Ireland possible.

Wherever I appear at present, I find the same questions being asked of me: why is the Labour Party not opposing Brexit more forcefully? Why is Labour not attempting to stop Brexit?

It is worth observing that the questions are usually asked in such a way - and often through social media posts - that it is hard not to conclude that they are part of a Liberal Democrat strategy for the local elections that take place on 3 May. Soundbites of this sort are designed to filter out to potential supporters and those who agree with the proposition. Of course not everyone asking the question is a card-carrying Lib Dem supporter, but the fact remains that the General Election squeezed the Liberal Democrat vote, already at a low after the 2015 election, and although there are signs of a patchy recovery in by-elections it is a very long road back. Under the circumstances it is not surprising that the straw they have clutched at is Labour’s position on Brexit - after all, Labour is where the bulk of their remain supporting vote went.

So what really is Labour’s position?

In marked contrast to the Conservative Prime Minister, who has backed herself into a corner at every turn, Labour has never closed off options. The fact of a ‘leave’ majority in many Labour constituencies, the fact of a leave majority in most regions and the fact of a leave majority in the UK as a whole is a backdrop that it is simply not possible for Labour, as a party, to ignore. It was, therefore, important that Labour recognise the need for the UK Government to enter negotiations with the EU27 over the UK’s future relationship with the EU. And even though MPs are representatives, not delegates, it is also perfectly reasonable for Labour MPs at Westminster to seek to represent the views of their constituents if that is their judgement. The test is what those negotiations produce and whether or not the promises made to voters by those campaigning at the referendum can be met.

To measure that, Keir Starmer (pictured above with myself) who leads for Labour on Brexit, has put in place six tests against which any final deal should be measured and, should they not be met, commit Labour to voting against the final deal. They will ask of the deal:

• 1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
• 2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
• 3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
• 4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
• 5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
• 6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

Will these tests be met?

In my view it is already clear that these commitments will not be met. It is already clear that Brexit will cost jobs, remove rights, fail to deliver ‘the exact same benefits’ and, crucially, will fail to manage migration in anything like the way that many of those who voted leave will expect. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are very unlikely to have their particular needs addressed. Brexit will not deliver for working people and least of all for the least well off.

So what is my position?

It is clear to me that Labour must bear in mind the welfare of the country and the views of its own voters when considering its votes on a final deal. All of the serious evidence shows that the great bulk, as many as 70% of Labour voters, voted to stay in the EU. That represents a majority of the Labour vote in almost all constituencies - including those with an ‘out’ majority. The overwhelming bulk of Labour members are pro-EU and Labour’s ‘new voters’ that brought landslide victories in Bristol West and Oxford East and pulled off shocks in Portsmouth South and, for goodness sake, Canterbury are overwhelmingly pro-European. So voting against the final deal is not just the right thing for Labour to do, it is keeping faith with its voters and makes electoral sense.

My personal position in all this is simple. I and my predecessor were selected and elected on a pro-EU manifesto. I represent constituents in a region where the referendum vote reflected the very close national result but where six of the ten MEPs are anti-EU. The other four MEPs including myself are pro-EU and I see it as part of my role to represent Labour voters and those other pro-EU voters in South East England who would otherwise be ignored. Also, my support for Britain’s place in the EU, which I regard first and foremost as a means of maintaining peace in Europe, is a matter of principle. Simple as that.

However, I am also pragmatic, and there is nothing in my position that prevents me working to limit the damage that Brexit will cause. If Britain does finally leave, I want to see the closest possible relationship with the EU that protects our economy, the rights of our people and the dreams of our young people. All Brexits are bad but some Brexits are undoubtedly worse than others.

John has signed a cross-party letter urging Donald Trump to halt attempts to lift the ban on elephant trophy hunting imports from Zimbabwe. 

The letter, written by Catherine Bearder MEP, gained the support of 63 cross-party MEPs and calls on Trump to instead work together with the EU and tackle rapidly declining biodiversity.

If successful, Trump’s plans would support the trophy hunting industry in Zimbabwe, a highly profit driven trade which employs a very small number of people, with very little benefit to local economies and conservation programmes.

John said, "I welcome my colleague's initiative and I am happy to sign this letter along with MEPs of all parties – it is very important that there is concern right across the political spectrum on this appalling action. The trade trophy hunting relics undermines the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) agreement. The actions of Mr Trump will bring the extinction of important species closer."

Like so much President Trump does, the measures have an uncomfortable closeness to the proclivities of the Trump family. His offspring are pictured above with wild animals that they have bravely killed from a distance and an elephant tail trophy. African elephants are endangered species listed under CITES since 1976.  

The text of the letter reads as follows:

8th March 2018

Dear President Trump,

We are disturbed by your administration’s decision to lift the ban on elephant trophy imports from Zimbabwe. Elephants are endangered species and play important roles in the ecosystem maintaining the environment for hundreds of animal and plant species. African elephants have suffered catastrophic declines and studies have shown that trophy hunting is contributing to this downward trend.

Unlike poaching, trophy hunting is legal in Zimbabwe, however trophy hunting does not help with conservation efforts. The hunting business in Africa is a highly profit driven trade which employs a very small number of people and the revenue that trickles into local communities and conservation programmes is insignificant. In reality, wildlife management in many African countries is fraught with corruption.

In the European Union we have a comprehensive Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking which sets out a strategy for EU Member States to curb the scourge of the illegal wildlife trade which is causing irreversible damage to the planet and our society. Trophy hunting is proven to feed that illegal market and encourage the trade in illegal ivory.

We believe that the EU and the US should be working together to tackle the issue of rapidly declining biodiversity. The idea of killing elephants to protect their survival is counterintuitive and shown to be wrong. The hunting business is distorting conservation efforts and must be stopped if we want to preserve these and other endangered species. The combination of poaching and trophy hunting will lead to the extinction of elephants. We therefore press upon you to retract your decision to lift the ban and join the EU and the global community to conserve and protect endangered species.

Yours sincerely.

Catherine Bearder MEP (United Kingdom)

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy MEP (Netherlands)

Keith Taylor MEP (United Kingdom)

Sophie Montel MEP (France)

Kateřina Konečná MEP (Czech Republic)

Ivo Vajgl MEP (Slovenia)

Jude Kirton-Darling MEP (United Kingdom)

Stefan Eck MEP (Germany)

Petras Auštrevičius MEP (Lithuania)

Theresa Griffin MEP (United Kingdom)

John Howarth MEP (United Kingdom)

Petr Ježek MEP (Czech Republic)

Alyn Smith MEP (United Kingdom)

Ernest Urtasun MEP (Spain)

Molly Scott Cato MEP (United Kingdom)

Marco Affronte MEP (Italy)

David Martin MEP (United Kingdom)

Patricia Lalonde MEP (France)

Paul Brannan MEP (United Kingdom)

Karoline Graswander-Hainz MEP (Austria)

Fabio Massimo Castaldo MEP (Italy)

José Inácio Faria MEP (Portugal)

Linda McAvan MEP (United Kingdom)

Merja Kyllönen MEP (Finland)

Monika Vana MEP (Austria)

Emil Radev MEP (Bulgaria)

Joachim Schuster MEP (Germany)

Nessa Childers MEP (Ireland)

Emma McClarkin MEP (United Kingdom)

Benedek Jávor MEP (Hungary)

Kathleen Van Brempt MEP (Belgium)

Robert Rochefort MEP (France)

Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg MEP (Poland)

Florian Philippot MEP (France)

Claude Rolin MEP (Belgium)

Yannick Jadot MEP (France)

Jiří Pospíšil MEP (Czech Republic)

David Borrelli MEP (Italy)

Susanne Melior MEP (Germany)

Hilde Vautmans MEP (Belgium)

Carolina Punset MEP (Spain)

Florent Marcellesi MEP (Spain)

Csaba Sógor MEP (Romania)

Guillaume Balas MEP (France)

Lola Sánchez Caldentey MEP (Spain)

Jill Evans MEP (United Kingdom)

Charles Tannock MEP (United Kingdom)

Elmar Brok MEP (Germany)

Eleonora Evi MEP (Italy)

Helga Trüpel MEP (Germany)

Michal Boni MEP (Poland)

Karin Kadenbach MEP (Austria)

Olga Sehnalová MEP (Czech Republic)

Claude Turmes MEP (Luxembourg)

Jytte Guteland MEP (Sweden)

Olle Ludvigsson MEP (Sweden)

Jens Nilsson MEP (Sweden)

Marita Ulvskog MEP (Sweden)

Anna Hedh MEP (Sweden)

Karima Delli MEP (France)

Anja Hazekamp MEP (Netherlands)

Sirpa Pietikäinen MEP (Finland)

Dario Tamburrano MEP (Italy)

Alex Mayer MEP (United Kingdom)

Julie Ward MEP (United Kingdom)

On 7 March, I hosted a reception on behalf of the Port of Dover for MEPs and policy specialists in the European Parliament, entitled ‘Brexit and cross-channel fluidity - Protecting a strategic link for the future of EU/UK trade: a UK perspective.’ (The EU specialises in snappy concise titles). Guest speakers included Tim Waggott, Chief Executive of the Port of Dover (pictured above with myself).

The purpose of the event was to build understanding of Dover’s role as the principal artery for trade from the UK to and from continental Europe; to discuss the challenges posed by Brexit, in particular traffic fluidity, customs, border formalities and transportation rules; and to enable the Port of Dover’s senior management to engage with MEPs and EU officials on the arrangements that might come into play at the point the UK leaves the European Union.

The political background is, of course, the promise by the Brexiteers that trade between the EU and Britain would remain ‘frictionless’ were the country to leave the EU. In the light of reality this is clearly a false promise. After hosting the event for Dover I am clearer than ever that the only way to maintain frictionless trade and safeguard our economy is to avoid the kind of hard Brexit that would take us out of the single market and customs union. Anything else is fiction.

The Port of Dover by (big) numbers

Dover is vitally important to the economic wellbeing of the UK:

• It is one of the world’s busiest port for freight lorries: 2.6 million each year;
• It is the single most significant point of entry for UK goods into the EU and EU goods into the UK, as well as providing the land route for goods moving by and from Ireland and the continent;
• It has an economic value of £119 billion - 17% of the UK’s trade in goods;
• It is also essential for supply chains relying on just-in-time deliveries.

The growing success of Dover has been based on frictionless trade enabled by Britain’s EU membership, the customs union and single market. In 1992 the Dover route accounted for around 1 million lorry movements, by 2016 that had almost trebled - once the Channel Tunnel is included it is almost 4 million.

At present, less that 1 percent of Dover’s arrivals have driven all the way across the EU to get to the UK, meaning documentation must be checked for only a few hundred lorries a day going to and from non-EU countries such as Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.

There is no getting away from the physical realities of these trade volumes and no amount of fantasy technology and magic thinking can hide the fact that any kind of customs border imposes a requirement for inspections - otherwise it simply cannot work. So unless the current customs regime is safeguarded, every lorry that passes through Dover will have to undergo customs processing and in many, if not most cases, physical inspection. That is many thousands per day, 2.6 million per year. Currently, the facilities simply do not exist for this vastly increased workload and recent estimates suggest even two minutes spent processing each lorry would create 17-mile tailbacks.

No strategy from the Conservative government

The UK government talks of frictionless trade but doesn’t have a strategy to achieve this, nor does it seem to have contingency plans ready for Dover or other Ports. The government needs a plan and the public needs to know what that plan is. That they don’t appear to have one after all this time is shocking. They need to take this seriously.

The Port of Dover is quite right to say that if arrangements work at Dover, they will work for the UK but if they don’t work, it will be a disaster for the UK. If the Port of Dover stops working, there is a danger we will have food shortages in shops within days.

The Government is clearly banking on a transition arrangement maintaining the status quo for long enough to put new arrangements in place. Theresa May needs to come clean with people in Dover and east Kent on the reality of the new infrastructure needed to allow Dover to continue to function and to prevent Kent from becoming a car park for lorries destined for Europe.

The Port of Dover is vital to the economic wellbeing of the UK, but also Ireland, France Belgium and many other European nations. It is only through the UK remaining within the single market and customs union that we can avoid chaos at our borders, queues on our motorways, shortages in our shops, and a significant hit to the economic wellbeing of our country.

John writes:

On 20 February I hosted a reception for MEPs in the European Parliament entitled ‘Fusion after Brexit: Implications of Brexit and the UK’s departure from EURATOM on European Nuclear Fusion Research’. Guest speakers included Ian Chapman, CEO of the UK Atomic Energy Authority and Director of the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy (pictured back left above); Tony Donne, Programme Manager for EUROfusion (next left above); Jan Panek, Head of Unit ITER in DG Energy (right above) and Clare Moody MEP for South West England (front left above).

All spoke passionately about the leading role played by JET in paving the way for ITER and the delivery phase of nuclear fusion. This cross-party event was also an opportunity to discuss the impact of the UK’s departure from the EU, and significantly from the EU’s nuclear community – Euratom – which is putting this leading role in jeopardy.

JET and the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy are based in Oxfordshire, in my South East England constituency, and in November 2017 - ahead of our reception in the European Parliament - I was given the opportunity to tour JET and witness this incredibly impressive feat of science.

I’ve long been aware that fusion offers the prospect of plentiful clean energy when developed on a commercial scale, the first successful proof of concept experiments having been carried out at the centre. JET is an EU venture through and through, not only because it is far too big a project for any one nation state, but because it hinges on cross-border collaboration and involves scientists from every EU member state and beyond. The hundreds of scientists, engineers and technicians who visit the centre to conduct experiments, as well as the parts used to assemble the world’s biggest nuclear fusion reactor so far, come from all around the Union. Crucially, so does the €283 million that underpins the JET program for the five years through 2018.

All of this is threatened by Brexit, and the UK government’s decision to leave Euratom threatens the future of fusion research in which Britain has led the way. If and when this happens, any future progress and ground-breaking scientific research and collaboration could be threatened, losing the UK access to EU funding, inhibiting easy movement of scientists and stifling rapid and responsive cross-border work. The current funding for JET also ends in December 2018, so experiments in 2019 and beyond – vital for ITER preparation – are endangered if ongoing close collaboration between the UK and Euratom cannot be negotiated.

If the UK Government gets Brexit wrong, it will seriously damage Britain’s world-leading scientific reputation and with it the wider international fusion program. It is essential to both the UK and the rest of the EU that we somehow keep the UK as part of the Euratom community after Brexit - assuming it does, in fact, go ahead.

Fusion research will always be an international effort. By holding this event we helped to build support in Brussels for finding a way to sustain the partnership that will benefit Britain, Europe and the wider international fusion community.

I have co-signed the following letter to the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs calling for urgent action on the Rohingya refugee crisis. Labour MEPs Wajid Khan and Richard Corbett recently visited the refugee camps in Bangladesh. There is little doubt that this massive ethnic cleansing is one of the greatest crimes against humanity we have seen in this young century. The situation will get much worst when the monsoon rains hit the area soon. Action on a world-wide scale is now required to avoid further catastrophe.

Dear High Representative / Vice President Mogherini,

We are writing to you ahead of the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 26-27 February, which will take place exactly 6 months after the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar begun.

Since 25th August 2017, around 700,000 Rohingya refugees have crossed the border from Myanmar to seek shelter in Bangladesh. The UN says the Rohingya's situation is the "world's fastest growing refugee crisis" and describes the Myanmar military offensive as a "textbook example of ethnic cleansing" bearing “the hallmarks of a genocide”.

According to recent research by Amnesty International[1], the Myanmar security forces’ devastating campaign against the Rohingya population is far from over, and there are ongoing violations that have forced hundreds more people to flee in recent weeks. This means that the agreed return of the refugees back to Myanmar is premature.

Therefore, we urge you to take additional measures as called for by the European Parliament in its resolution on the situation of the Rohingya people of 14 December 2017. In particular, we believe it is of the utmost importance that the EU Foreign Affairs Ministers adopt the following measures in order to exert significant pressure on Myanmar’s military to stop the violence:

• Condemn the ongoing violence, grave human rights abuses and loss of lives, livelihoods and shelter in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States;
  Explicitly acknowledge that most likely crimes against humanity have been committed by the Myanmar security forces;
• Impose travel bans and financial sanctions against those responsible for perpetrating criminal acts in Myanmar, including military commanders and senior officers, as requested in the Parliament’s resolutions of September and December 2017;
• Suspend military assistance programmes, extend the scope of the existing arms embargo against Myanmar, and support the establishment of a UN-mandated global arms embargo;
• Insist on immediate, unfettered and sustained humanitarian access to all people in need in Rakhine State and on access for the UN Fact-Finding Mission to carry out its mandate of conducting investigations into human rights violations;
• Press the Myanmar Government to refer jurisdiction over grave human rights crimes committed since August 25, 2017 to the International Criminal Court, as a court of last resort under Art. 12(3) (acceptance of (ad hoc) jurisdiction under the Rome Statute) and urge the government to ratify the Rome Statute; explore all avenues for justice and accountability;
• Insist that if any returns of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar do take place these are voluntary, dignified, safe and informed, with full UNHCR and OHCHR oversight of the process and fully compliant with international law;
• Support the full implementation of the Rakhine Advisory Commission report;
• Increase financial and material assistance to support durable solutions for refugees, making sure that the assistance is conditioned on non-discrimination, non-segregation and equality;
• Pursue an EU long-term strategy in supporting the self-reliance and improved protection of Rohingya in Bangladesh, e.g. by ending limitations on their freedom of movement, improving access to livelihoods opportunities and job markets, ensuring children’s access to education; and providing for civil documentation with a view to securing status;
• Call for the freedom of speech to be respected, for an immediate release of the Reuters journalists and urge Myanmar to bring its legislation on freedom of expression in line with international human rights law and standards.

We hope to be able to count on your support in this crucial matter.

Yours sincerely,

Wajid Khan MEP
Barbara Lochbihler MEP
Pier Antonio Panzeri MEP
Soraya Post MEP
David Martin MEP
Richard Corbett MEP
Amjad Bashir MEP
Urmas Paet MEP
Lucy Anderson MEP
Giacomo Zucchelli MEP
Miguel Alexandre Da Horta Cardoso MEP
Rory Palmer MEP
Margrete Auken MEP
Jude Kirton-Darling MEP
Jordi Solé MEP
Linda McAvan MEP
Hilde Vautmans MEP
Alyn Smith MEP
Baroness Nosheena Mobarik MEP
Clare Moody MEP
Bart Staes MEP
Mark Demesmaeker MEP
Barbara Spinelli MEP
Judith Sargentini MEP
Jose Inacio Faria MEP
Josef Weidenholzer MEP
Theresa Griffin MEP
Mary Honeyball MEP
John Howarth MEP
Maria Arena MEP
Maria Dolores Lola Sanchez Caldentey MEP
Dietmar Koster MEP
Margot Parker MEP
Arndt Kohn MEP
Goffredo Bettini MEP
Marie-Christine Vergiat MEP
Ernest Urtasun MEP
Younous Omarjee MEP
Sirpa Pietikäinen MEP

Last week was the TUCs’s Heart Unions Week, a week of celebration of the work trade unions and their representatives and stewards do across the country.

I joined a trade union as soon as I started work and I’ve been a member ever since. My Union, the NUJ, represents all sorts of people who earn their living with their pen - including a lot of self-employed and freelance staff working in all kinds of media businesses.

Despite some bad press over the years, the achievements of the trade unions remain relevant to the people who need their help most. Take the ‘McStrike’ at McDonalds; thanks to a small fraction of the workforce joining the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, bad working practices were challenged, and zero-hours contracts were stopped for all McDonalds staff in the UK. Clearly, union organisation in the workplace can benefit all employees and create better working conditions for everyone.

The simple fact is the more people who are members in a workplace the stronger the union and the better results they can deliver.

Trade unions have helped to apply pressure to successive UK Governments, forcing them to pass legislation that has allowed everyone to enjoy the workplace rights we now take for granted. This includes sick pay, enhanced maternity and paternity rights, and the implementation of anti-discrimination laws in the workplace, prohibiting discrimination based on gender or disability.

However, whilst pressure from trade unions has helped to change laws, we must remember that this pressure can be ignored unless coupled with pressure from another authority. 
In many cases, this has been the European Union.

The Labour Government elected by a landslide in 1997 delivered its promise to opt in to the Social Protocols of the European treaties within days of its election. It was a key, popular manifesto pledge and it made union membership by choice a right. The European Union has helped to set a minimum standard of rights and expectations in the workplace. The Working Time Directive has placed restrictions on the number of hours that employers can require employees to work. The EU has set essential workplace health and safety requirements, and again, thanks to EU membership, UK employees are entitled to four weeks of paid annual holiday.

Whatever the Tories say, leaving the EU will risk making Britain’s employment laws vulnerable to future Tory Governments lowering labour standards - and recent reports have expose the fact that the Tories are already planning to role rights back once the dust has settled on their hard, job-destroying Brexit. David Davis has said that a post-Brexit Britain will not be like some sort of ‘Mad Max’ style dystopian race to the bottom, but then Mr David contradicts himself for fun these days. The Conservatives and their mates have allowed a ‘race to the bottom’ to take place over terms and conditions and through contracting-out of jobs and by allowing cowboy employers to get away with zero-hours blackmail and institutionalised workplace bullying.

So do you really trust the Tories with your employment rights?

After Brexit, if and when it happens, UK citizens in the workplace risk being stuck with outdated and unfit workplace standards. There will be no obligation for future UK Governments, of any political stripe, to implement future EU regulations and directives, so there will a risk that the UK’s employment law will fall behind that of our European neighbours.

From conversations I have had with trade unionists and employers alike there is an increasing understanding that Brexit will hit ordinary people hardest and seriously damage many of our key industries. Key figures in the trade union movement are backing the UK staying in the single market and customs union to minimise the damage.

That’s great, but the best deal for working people in the UK is remaining in the EU. Any sort of Brexit will cost rights, jobs, and reduce living standards, with UK regions such as the North East and the Midlands, but also cities like Brighton, Oxford, Medway and Southampton being among the hardest hit.

If you are not a member of trade union, do consider joining one, and encourage your colleagues to do the same. If and when Brexit happens, it will be more important than ever to be part of a movement that will look out for your workers’ rights. Do not trust the hard Brexit Tories to do that for you.