Resetting the UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad that the title of the excellent report we are discussing refers to a “reset”. Indeed, there seems general agreement in all the documents, including the Government’s response, that it is a reset, which we can define very widely. It is certainly “unfinished business” and certainly raises issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, rightly said, of wider geopolitical significance.

Some of us have been at this issue for, in my case, over half a century, long before we actually joined the European Union, or European Community as it was then called—or was it the European Economic Community or Common Market? I cannot remember; there have been so many changes. It has dominated the lives of many of us in and out of politics and public affairs for well more than half a century, before the treaty of Rome. To try to add anything in four minutes is a bit of an insult to the wisdom of this report and to the proverbial skills of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. I suppose that, until we can change this extraordinary Lords procedure, which I think we should somehow try a bit harder to do, we are stuck with it.

What are the evolving changes? Obviously, everyone is pointing out that the whole show—the whole European Union—like everyone else, is in a new world context and operating under new pressures. It is very different from the body that we left when we left the customs union and Common Market arrangements some years ago.

The new factors include, first, security, as has already been pointed out in the excellent opening speeches, and the new problems of changing security. People talk about what will happen with Ukraine and whether we should do this, that or the other, but there is no outcome in Ukraine in prospect. Meanwhile, Russia is moving to a new situation and beginning to raise agitations and undertake more hybrid activities with the Baltic states, which are our friends. They have not been given nearly enough attention in our view of our partners in the sort of Europe that should lie ahead. It is going to come anyway; it is no use saying that we are just an applicant to rejoin certain aspects, as it were, without the cards. We have enormous cards. We belong with the middle nations that Mr Carney talked about the other day. We have immense pressures to mobilise, if we use them carefully. The Baltic states are our friends and Russia is busily working to disturb them—not by military invasion, but by all kinds of other activities—and cause additional problems, even though they may not see any more than we do to the Ukraine situation.

Secondly, it has also been raised that defence and warfare have totally changed, requiring completely different politics from what we discussed 10 years ago. As many of us predicted 30 years ago, drones have transformed the system and nature of war, and the disposition of trenches and troops. The use of AI is coming along, which will transform it even further.

Thirdly, the whole of Europe, including the EU, is underwater on debt at a level and scale which has never been seen before in history. The euro is weakening. We must be very careful not to be involved in all this before we understand what is really happening.

Finally, we must get ahead with rebuilding the global governance which we set up in 1945 from the rubble of the Second World War. It is now out of date, out of time and in great trouble. It requires a new architecture to provide us with a shell of protection—the shield under which we can reform ourselves. Britain played a major part in 1945. I cannot see that major part being played in 2026.