This EU-UK summit has for months been openly billed by Sir Keir Starmer’s Downing Street as a hugely significant moment for this government.

The Labour leader promised in his 2024 election manifesto that the UK would sign a new security pact with the EU to strengthen cooperation and improve the UK’s trading relationship with the continent.

Since winning power in July, he has embarked on a charm offensive across European capitals in a bid to secure that better post-Brexit deal.

Monday is set to be when the PM makes good on those promises at a historic summit at Lancaster House in London.

Read more: What exactly could the UK-EU reset look like?

There, the EU and UK are expected to sign a security and defence partnership, which has taken on a new sense of urgency since the arrival of President Trump in the White House.

It is an agreement that will symbolise the post-Brexit reset, with the PM, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and European Council president Antonio Costa are also expected to sign off on a communique pledging deeper economic cooperation.

But, rather like the torturous Brexit negotiations I covered for years in London and Brussels under Conservative prime ministers, Sir Keir’s post-Brexit reset talks are going down to the wire.

As of 10.30pm on Sunday, discussions were set to continue overnight, the two sides snared up over details around fisheries, food trade and youth mobility.

It’s not that both sides don’t want the reset: the war in Ukraine and the spectre of the US becoming an unreliable partner have pushed London and Brussels closer together in their common defence interest.

👉 Click here to follow Electoral Dysfunction wherever you get your podcasts 👈

Fishing and youth mobility – the two snags

But the pressure for this deal weighs more heavily on our prime minister than his European colleagues. He’s been talking for months about securing a reset and better trading relationship with the EU to bolster the UK economy.

His need to demonstrate wins is why, suggests one continental source, the Europeans are letting talks go to the wire, with London and Brussels in a tangle over fishing rights – key demands of France and the Netherlands – and a youth mobility scheme, which is a particular focus for Berlin.

“The British came with 50 asks, we came with two – on fishing and the youth mobility scheme,” says one European source.

The EU is asking for longer-term access to UK fishing grounds – a 10-year deal – which the British government has rebuffed, insisting it will not go beyond a four-year deal.

In response, Brussels is saying it will not lift regulatory checks on food, agricultural and animal products unless the UK moves on fishing. This has left the two sides at an impasse.

EU sources say Brussels had offered a time-limited deal to lift checks on animal products – replicating London’s offer on fisheries – but the UK is reluctant to do this as it leaves too much uncertainty for farmers and supermarkets.

Scotland election weighing on talks

A deal on food products, known as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) goods, would be a boost for the economy, with potentially up to 80% of border checks disappearing, given the breadth of products – paint, fashion goods, leather as well as foods – with an animal component.

Any deal would also mean the UK would have to align with rules made in Brussels and make a financial contribution to the EU to fund work on food and animal standards.

Both elements will trigger accusations of Brexit “betrayal”, as the UK signs up as a “rule taker” and finds itself paying back into the EU for better access.

Government figures had been telling me how they were more than prepared to face down the criticisms likely to be thrown at them from the Conservatives.

But sensitivities around fishing, particularly in Scotland, where Labour is facing elections next year, have weighed on talks.

Read more from Sky News:
UK has not asked about asylum return hubs, other Balkan countries say
‘Ouch’: Starmer condemned for telling MP ‘she talks rubbish’
Joe Biden diagnosed with ‘aggressive’ form of prostate cancer

The other area of huge tension is over a youth mobility scheme, which would enable young adults from member states to study and work in the UK and vice versa.

Government sources familiar with the talks acknowledge some sort of scheme will happen, but want details to be vague – I’m told it might be “an agreement about a future agreement”, while the EU sees this a one of its two core demands.

In talks late on Sunday night, the UK government appeared to be softening on re-opening the pre-Brexit Erasmus student exchange scheme as perhaps a way to get around the impasse, according to one EU source.

The UK rejoining this scheme had been rebuffed by Sir Keir last year, but was raised again last night in talks, according to a source.

Common ground on defence and security

Wherever the economic horsetrading lands, the two sides have found common ground in recent months is on defence and security, with the UK working in lockstep with European allies over Ukraine and relationships deepening in recent months as Sir Keir Starmer has worked with President Macron and others to try to smooth tensions between Kyiv and Washington and work on a European peace deal for Ukraine.

If details on trade, youth mobility and fisheries are fudged on Monday, the expectation is that the two sides will sign a security partnership that will reiterate the UK’s commitment to build up the continent’s defence capability and stand united against Russian aggression with its partners.

The deal should also mean British arms companies will be able to access the EU’s €150bn rearmament programme, which has been set up to create a massive surge in defence spending over the next five years as Europe prepares itself to better repel threats.

As I write this, talks are ongoing, but it is clearly in neither side’s interest for Monday to go wrong.

The EU and UK need to maintain a united front and, more importantly for Keir Starmer domestically, the PM needs to show an increasingly sceptical public he can deliver on his promises.

Easing trade barriers with Britain’s biggest trading partner and signing an EU defence pact would be two manifesto promises delivered.

And with his popularity sinking to a record low in recent days, he could really do with a win.

Last week, Sir Keir Starmer voiced his worry Britain could become an “island of strangers” if immigration was not tackled.

Some claimed this was a controversial and dangerous stance – drawing parallels with Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech.

But research released today suggests close to half of those in Great Britain feel like “strangers” in their own country.

Politics latest: Follow live updates

The survey, carried out by pollsters at More In Common, asked 13,464 people in Great Britain for their feelings on the matter.

And what is even more surprising is that the survey was carried out over a month before Sir Keir‘s speech.

The research is only being released today, and it is understood that Downing Street had not seen it before the prime minister’s speech.

However it will likely be welcomed as a justification of a position aimed outside of Westminster.

Isolation linked to wealth

The prime minister’s concerns about Great Britain being an “island of strangers” was inextricably linked to rising immigration.

But the research out today shows the isolation felt by many is strongly linked to wealth – with the poorest in the country more likely to feel like strangers.

The cost of living was mentioned as a contributory factor by many of those asked.

And when it comes to ethnic breakdown of those saying they feel like strangers, Asian or Asian British people were more likely than either white or black British people to say they felt separate.

Amy, a teacher from Runcorn, told researchers that when “your money’s all going on your bills and the boring stuff like food and gas and leccy and petrol” there is nothing left “to do for ourselves”.

Read more:
Reform tops polls for first time
Reform surge in estimated national vote

Who is Starmer targeting?

Those who criticised Sir Keir for his “strangers” speech tended to accuse the prime minister of appealing to supporters of Reform or the Conservatives.

Suspended Labour MP Zarah Sultana went as far as to claim the speech was a “foghorn to the far right”.

The analysis from More in Common found that people who supported Reform and the Conservatives last year are indeed much more likely to feel like strangers in the UK.

While Labour, Lib Dem and Green supporters are all less likely to feel like strangers, around a third of them do still agree with the statement that they “sometimes feel like a stranger in my own country”.

And the polling also found that Reform and Conservative voters are much more likely to think that multiculturalism threatens national identity, while supporters of the other three parties tend to largely believe multiculturalism is a benefit.

Across the board, supporters of all parties were more likely than not to think that everyone needs to do more to encourage integration between people of different ethnic backgrounds – and similarly a majority think it is everyone’s responsibility to do so.

Luke Tryl, the UK director of More in Common, said: “The prime minister’s warning that we risk becoming an ‘island of strangers’ resonates with millions who say they feel disconnected from those around them.

“But it would be a mistake to say that immigration and lack of integration are the sole causes of our fragmenting social fabric.”

John McDonnell, another former Labour MP, now suspended, told Sky News that having politicians “exploit” resentment fuelled by economic circumstance to shift “the blame onto migrants just exacerbates the problem”.

He said the government needs to “tackle the insecurity of people’s lives and you lay the foundations of a cohesive society”.

With Reform now leading in the polls and the collapse of support for Sir Keir since becoming prime minister, it is unsurprising that what he says seems to match up with what turquoise voters feel.

Work from home alone

The post-pandemic shift to working from home and spending more time alone has also been blamed for an increased feeling of isolation.

Ruqayyah, a support worker from Peterborough, said the shift to home offices had “destroyed our young generation”.

But there are many other reasons that people feel separate from the rest of their country.

Read more:
Internet may help older people’s mental health
No evidence of ‘two-tier policing’ in handling of Southport

Young people are less trusting of strangers, and there is also a deep discontent with the political system.

Many think the system is “rigged” in favour of the wealthy – although this belief is less common the higher the level of education someone has completed.

The tension that exploded during last year’s riots are also highlighted, and many people are worried about religious differences – a situation exacerbated by foreign conflicts like in the Middle East and between India and Pakistan.

The research was carried out alongside the campaign group Citizens UK and UCL.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Matthew Bolton, executive director of Citizens UK, said: “We all saw what can happen last summer when anger and mistrust boil over and threaten the fabric of our society.

“The answers to this don’t lie in Whitehall.

“By listening to people closest to the ground about what causes division and what builds unity in their neighbourhood, we can build a blueprint for cohesion rooted in local leadership and community power.”

Britain may need anti-subversion laws to counter threats from states determined to undermine democracy, a government watchdog has said.

Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threat legislation, is due to report this week on using counter-terrorism laws against state interference.

Mr Hall was asked by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to review whether there were elements of counter-terrorism legislation which could be emulated to address state-based security threats last December.

In particular, he was asked to look at what legal measures would be useful against “highly aggressive state bodies” such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

In a speech to the Policy Exchange thinktank on Monday, Mr Hall will say the internet offers intelligence officers a “perfect way of directly recruiting tasking and paying individuals”.

“Young people who might once have been attracted to a terrorist cause are now willing to carry out sabotage for [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s Russia,” he will add in the John Creaney Memorial Lecture.

“They are recruited in exactly the same way, by groups operating on Telegram”, an encrypted messaging app, the reviewer says.

“I am thinking about the measures that may one day be needed to save democracy from itself. What do I mean? I am referring to counter-subversion,” he is set to add.

Counter-subversion was part of MI5’s role in the 1950s and 1970s but fell out of favour, associated with McCarthyism and infiltrations of domestic protest groups by undercover police, Mr Hall says.

Read more from Sky News:
Luke Littler hits out at vandals who targeted his van
Boy dies after ‘disturbance’ at beach

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

New laws may now be needed but they would need to come with legal safeguards.

“If I was a foreign intelligence officer, of course I would ensure that the UK hated itself and its history,” he says in the speech.

“That the very definition of woman should be put into question, and that masculinity would be presented as toxic.

“That white people should be ashamed and non-white people aggrieved. I would promote antisemitism within politics.

“My intention would be to cause both immediate and long-term damage to the national security of the UK by exploiting the freedom and openness of the UK by providing funds, exploiting social media, and entryism.”

Pro-Russia groups find ideological affinity with “lone actors” by posing as “protectors of Christian civilisation” and position Russia as a “true defender of crumbling Western civilisation,” he says.

Foreign intelligence agents could already be using social media as a “delightful playground for wedge issues”.

They could seek to use online “sextortion” tactics to obtain kompromat and force individuals to carry out tasking, while they may also be seeking to meddle in Brexit, Scottish independence or the independence of overseas territories.

They could also sponsor contentious foreign policy issues such as Gaza, or amplify the lie that the Southport killer was a Muslim who arrived on a small boat, Mr Hall says.

They might encourage extreme forms of environmentalism, or policies that would damage adversaries’ economy “or at least sow discord or hopelessness”, the reviewer adds.

Content moderation – removing, blocking, or limiting access to certain content – is “never going to sufficiently address the unprecedented access that the internet accords to impressionable minds,” Mr Hall says.

Legal measures that have proved useful in dealing with domestic terrorist groups may need to be adapted for groups involved in state threats to stop them promoting themselves and inviting support online and offline, he says in the speech.

One answer is the offence of “foreign interference” under the new National Security Act 2023 but proving that a “foreign hand” is at work can be very difficult, Mr Hall says.

Another answer is “social resilience against disinformation” or even “a Cold War mentality that sniffs out subversion”.

“But what if it was necessary to go further? What if it was necessary to investigate, intrusively, the source of funding for protest movements?”

Mr Hall asks if it might be necessary to “bring forward a law, in the interests of national security, banning extremism or subversion”.

He asks if it might be desirable to pass a law banning Muslim Brotherhood candidates from standing in elections.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist social movement which arose in Egypt in the 1920s but also gave rise to Hamas.

Such laws would be difficult, he acknowledges, because they would have to be based on general principles that apply to individuals equally – such as separatism, hateful extremism, or subversiveness – which have so far eluded politicians.

If such new laws were introduced, they would “need sufficient safeguard in the form of judicial intervention, not cowed by excessive deference to the executive but ready to correct things when they go wrong”, Mr Hall concludes.