Category Archives: Public Affairs

EU Youth Mobility Scheme: Brexit divisions and the Burnham factor

GK’s Brett Morton examines the ongoing negotiations with the EU on a youth mobility scheme and what it means for the future of the UK-EU relationship

A youth mobility agreement has become a central component of the Labour government’s drive to improve UK-EU relations. Although both sides broadly support the principle of making it easier for young people to live, work and study across borders, the parties remain divided over the terms. Points of contention over immigration caps and tuition fees risk preventing a wider package of UK-EU cooperation measures. Both sides had been keen to secure these at a second bilateral summit scheduled for 22 July in Brussels. The summit has now been delayed following the Prime Minister’s resignation.

The scheme under discussion would allow 18-30-year-olds from the UK and EU to spend a limited period living, studying and working in each other’s countries. In broad terms, it would resemble the agreement the UK already has with countries such as Australia and Canada. Under those arrangements, young people can come to Britain for up to three years, subject to visa rules and annual caps, and work, travel or study without employer sponsorship. The UK would like any deal with the EU to follow the same basic model: temporary, managed and clearly distinct from free movement.

That distinction matters because immigration remains one of the most politically charged legacies of Brexit. Opponents of the proposal, including Nigel Farage, argue that such a scheme would amount to freedom of movement under a different name. Ministers have been keen to stress that any agreement with the EU would be time-limited and capped. Reports suggest the Starmer government favoured a ceiling of 50,000 participants a year. The EU, by contrast, is believed to prefer a more flexible arrangement, with no fixed cap but a break mechanism that would allow either side to intervene if numbers became excessive. For the next Prime Minister, accepting a scheme without a visible numerical limit would be politically difficult, particularly given the public’s appetite to reduce net migration.

Since Brexit, labour shortages have become a persistent problem in sectors such as hospitality, agriculture and construction. At present, a young EU citizen who wants to work in the UK for a limited period usually needs sponsorship from a British employer. In practice, that system is often costly, bureaucratic and tied to salary thresholds that many small businesses cannot meet. In many cases, sponsorship requires employers to offer a salary of at least £41,700 a year, or the going rate for the role, which places it out of reach for much seasonal, temporary and lower-paid work. Supporters of a youth mobility scheme argue that without the need for sponsorship or salary thresholds, it could widen the pool of labour and make it easier to fill temporary or seasonal vacancies. Even so, its impact would be limited, as it may ease pressure in high-turnover sectors but would do far less to address longer-term shortages in fields that depend on permanent skilled workers, such as healthcare or technology.

A major obstacle to a youth mobility agreement is tuition fees. The EU wants students to study in the UK and EU countries on the same basis as domestic students, meaning EU students at UK universities would pay home fees rather than higher international rates. With 24 institutions reportedly at risk of insolvency within the next year, according to the Education Select Committee, international student fees have become a vital source of income. The Russel Group, an association of 24 prestigious universities in the UK, has warned that granting EU students home fee status could cost the sector around £580 million, reducing universities’ ability to invest in programmes such as Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe.

The youth mobility debate must also be understood in its wider political context. Starmer had originally hoped that a UK-EU reset would help revive his premiership by showing that closer cooperation with Europe could deliver practical benefits, from smoother trade to lower costs for consumers. With his resignation, that personal political purpose has fallen away. Future negotiations are no longer about rescuing his administration, but about shaping the direction of the next Prime Minister’s agenda.

With an Andy Burnham coronation now increasingly likely ahead of 22 July, the EU has postponed the summit. A youth mobility scheme could offer Burnham an opportunity to pursue economic and social reforms in response to what he has described as the ‘damage’ caused by Brexit. However, Burnham is also likely to be cautious about making significant concessions to Brussels, particularly on a cap, as he seeks to appeal to Reform UK voters and avoid reopening divisions from the Brexit referendum ahead of a potential 2029 general election. The future of any youth mobility scheme with the EU will therefore depend on Burnham’s political calculus.

Beyond the battlefield: Britain’s drone strategy as a lever for economic growth

Lessons from the battlefields of Ukraine, combined with rapid technological innovation, have pushed drones firmly into the centre of UK defence policy. Yet, the implications of this shift extend far beyond military capability and the defence sector. By scaling domestic manufacturing and considering drone technology within wider growth strategies, there is potential to unlock growth across many sectors in the UK economy.

The pace of technological development seen in Ukraine has demonstrated how quickly drone capability can evolve when innovation is tested under real-world conditions. Low-cost drones, AI-driven autonomous systems, and advanced first-person view drones have challenged traditional defence strategies. For the UK, this has underscored the importance of building domestic drone capability to enhance national security.

To build these capabilities, the Ministry of Defence’s 2024 Defence Drone Strategy and 2025 Defence Industrial Strategy set out a vision that includes drones as a central component of military capability. This has been reinforced by the 2025 Strategic Defence Review, in which the government recognised that drones will be central to future conflicts and outlines its ambition to support innovation and growth in the drones sector.

For defence contractors, the implications are immediate. The government’s desire to deliver progress at pace on these strategies means that businesses that can demonstrate resilient and tested technologies are positioned to win contracts. However, the effects of this industrial strategy will be felt far beyond defence, with these moves creating large spillover effects to the civilian drone market.  Defence procurement can help firms scale production, de-risk investment, and move more quickly into civilian markets. In addition, many of the technologies that are useful as defence capabilities will assist in commercial settings. For instance, advanced first-person view drones will allow drones to be used more easily for law enforcement and infrastructure inspection. Counter-drone technologies also have clear commercial value, Systems developed to detect and neutralise hostile drones can be deployed to protect airports, prisons, critical national infrastructure, and other sensitive sites.

Together, these applications illustrate how defence-led innovation can unlock the sector’s wider economic potential – estimated by government-commissioned analysis to reach up to £103 billion by 2050, as we highlighted in our recent article. This demonstrates the scale of the commercial opportunities now emerging for businesses and investors, as technologies initially developed for defence are increasingly able to scale into regulated civilian markets, supported by a growing ambition within government to be a world-leader in drone technology.

However, despite this opportunity, risks remain. Defence procurement is politically sensitive and shifts in budget priorities over the course of a parliament could constrain investment. This means that businesses must continue to engage with government to reduce regulatory barriers to create a favourable regulatory environment. Businesses who engage with the government’s existing work on regulatory innovation and help government understand where other challenges exist will reap the benefits of the UK’s focus on the drones sector.

If you’d like to discuss the drones sector and related policy in more detail, please reach out to Jacob on Jacob.walsh@gkstrategy.com

Why building 1.5 million homes isn’t as simple as it sounds….

Building 1.5 million new homes over the course of this parliament was a flagship policy commitment in Labour’s general election manifesto. The recently appointed housing secretary Steve Reed initially echoed the government’s ambition with the slogan ‘build baby build’. Reed has gone onto say the rate of construction is ‘unacceptable’ and has promised to increase the pace of housebuilding to deliver on Labour’s ambitious pre-election pledge.

The housing industry is facing a series of skills shortages. The Office for National Statistics warned that there are over 35,000 job vacancies in construction, many of which remain unfilled due to a lack of qualified workers. The Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) has stated that 61,000 new workers are needed each year to meet the government’s housebuilding target. Ministers have heard the calls of the CITB and in March announced that they would be investing up to £600 million to support training in the construction sector. This includes £165 million to help colleges deliver more construction courses and £40 million to support new foundation apprenticeships (launched in August). The £40 million includes an incentive of £2,000 per foundation apprentice hired and retained by employers which has been widely welcomed by the construction industry. The government has signalled that there could be continued investment, although this is likely to be restricted due to the current pressure on the public finances.

Another hurdle is the planning process. The number of new homes built in the UK has fallen during the government’s first year in office. Ministers have conceded there are ‘excessive rules’ delaying construction. The government is attempting to streamline the planning process through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which is currently before parliament. Ministers claim that the bill will create a more decisive planning system and increase the amount of land available for developers. Whilst the bill is a step in the right direction, the impact is unlikely to be immediate.

Despite these barriers, there are some clear opportunities for the construction sector. Increases to training investment, new apprenticeships and the promise of reforms all signal the government’s continued prioritisation of the sector. The changing environment and the development of a potential second planning bill present stakeholders with a wide range of opportunities to engage with policymakers, shape regulation and improve relations between the government and sector.

Stuck in the middle with you? Ed Davey, the Lib Dem party conference and the moderate fight

GK Associate Director Thea Southwell Reeves and Adviser Mariella Turley share their reflections on the recent Lib Dem Party Conference in Bournemouth

The Lib Dem conference was a prime opportunity for the party to remind voters of who they are politically and what they offer. A combination of publicity stunts and clever campaign strategies sent 72 Lib Dem MPs to parliament at the last election – the party’s biggest electoral success for over a century. For leader Ed Davey, the challenge was to usher in a new, serious party that could offer a credible alternative to voters dissatisfied with the parties on the traditional left and right of British politics. If this was his mission, he may have missed the mark. His decision to march into conference as the head of a marching band while his party was having yet another row over trans rights, has not given much reassurance to potential voters (outside the conference hall walls) that the party represents a serious electoral alternative.

Although Davey remains in a strong position as leader with the support of a mostly happy party behind him, the public is growing weary of his endless stunts. Polling conducted by More in Common was presented to members at conference and showed that more than 60% of voters think the party’s publicity stunts make them look less serious. Many voters are also still unsure what the party stands for.

Much of the focus of the four-day conference was on positioning the Lib Dems as the only credible opposition to Reform UK. Former leader Tim Farron took to the stage adorned in the Union Jack flag in a bid to frame the party as a progressive voice that can reclaim patriotism for the centrist majority. Davey’s speech centred on criticism of Reform and included claims that Nigel Farage wants to liberalise UK gun laws. The slogan ‘don’t let Trump’s America become Farage’s Britain’ echoed throughout.

We did get a flavour of some policy. Party members voted to revise the Lib Dems’ 2045 net zero target to align with the government’s 2050 net zero goal. Duncan Brack, chair of the Lib Dems’ climate working group, accepted that the earlier deadline had become unrealistic thanks to previous government efforts. Deputy Leader Daisy Cooper used her speech to unveil plans for a windfall tax on big banks to fund an Energy Security Bank. The bank would offer loans to homeowners and small businesses to invest in insultation, solar power and heat pumps. However, Cooper was forced to admit that no formal conversations have taken place with any banks to date. The Lib Dem science and technology spokesperson Victoria Collins hinted at tighter social media regulation, proposing the introduction of warnings on addictive apps and a two-hour cap on scrolling for under 18s. Davey used his leader’s speech to outline some key policy objectives including a new customs union with the EU, cutting energy bills in half by 2050, a guarantee of starting urgent cancer treatment within two months of diagnosis for all patients, and discounted visas for US cancer researchers.

Those hoping that the party’s annual conference would provide clarity on the Lib Dems’ role in the British political ecosystem are likely to feel none the wiser. Davey’s closing speech pitches the party as a safe space for disgruntled voters on the left and the right. A place for both Labour voters who are frustrated with Starmer’s performance in his first year of government and Conservative voters who feel profoundly anxious about Badenoch’s drift to the right. Translating that into clear narratives around policy will be deeply challenging for the party and risks political incoherence. The party’s pitch to be the moderate voice of British politics requires considerable skill and acumen to sell to a voting public that is currently more attracted to polarising policies.

The fundamental question for conference was how the party can build on its 2024 electoral success. Instead of publicity stunts for media attention, Davey should put his energy into carving out a distinct message to voters. The party has neither the finances nor the political capital to campaign on all issues so they would be wiser to focus on developing appealing centrist policies such as ambitious integration with the EU, a compassionate approach to immigrants and a more socially liberal attitude to equal rights. These are the big-ticket items most likely to appeal to both the former one nation Tories and the liberal left and help the Lib Dems seize the centre ground.

Making the most of party conference season

GK Strategy is pleased to share its guide to effective engagement with policymakers during party conference season.

Insight from the GK team on making the most of party conferences can be accessed here: https://gkstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Engaging-at-Party-Conference-Season-GK-Strategy-September-2025.pdf