A review of an event held at the Swedish Embassy on 19 June 2026 with Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG, Professor Alastair Sutton & Erik Lagerlöf by Abigail Holt.
Even Ambassadors engaged in being high level glue sticking international partners together in the interests of trade, security and good relations (communicating, listening hard and handing around top quality canapes), need to take the Embassy dog for a comfort break. Guests arrived at the Swedish embassy on 19 May 2019 as the Honourable Stefan Gullgren Swedish Ambassador to the UK sneaked back into his elegant official residence with his suitably chic pooch, no doubt returning from a quick circuit of Regents Park.
The gorgeous setting of the Swedish Embassy in London was soon delving into the unholy trinity of law, politics and economics. The prospect of the MP for Clapton becoming PM was addressed. The possibility of the political “king of the north” being elected as MP for Makerfield was floated. But mainly Sir Ivan Rogers KCMG and Professor Alastair Sutton were expertly guided by Erik Lagerlöf to map out what if anything the much trumpeted “UK-EU dynamic alignment” actually means, all within an hour. It was no walk in the park.
Whilst there were gentle disagreements between Sir Ivan and Prof Alastair, a great deal was clear. The EU has a smorgasbord of wicked problems on the table at the moment. Security, energy, war on the western border, Iran, the changed policies of the current administration in the United States, all of which has changed the EU’s strategic autonomy and relations with third countries. Consequently, the shenanigans of UK politics are not high up the EU’s list of priorities. Sir Ivan suggested that, even with a more EU-friendly government in number 10 at the moment and more positive conversations around phyto safety, talk of enhanced movement for young people and all the rest, did that really matter to EU leaders when they were dealing with the challenges generated by the US, China, Iran and the Ukraine-Russia war? Relations with the UK are of second or probably third-order issues for the member states.
Sir Ivan quickly and expertly dissected the Wes Streeting pro-European stance as probably being a political stick to beat Prime Minster Starmer with, whilst creating a trip wire for Burnham who has to distance himself from Europe at the forthcoming election in Lancashire where Reform wiped the floor in the recent council elections. The good folk of Ashton-in-Makerfield are in no mood to vote for any elite-Europe-favouring representative, he suggested.
So why have Starmer and Reeves changed the narrative around Brexit recently? In the 2024 election they wanted to close down the question of Europe. Nonetheless, the much flaunted EU-UK “re-set” has not improved UK productivity or growth. It is problematic for the EU if the UK treats dynamic realignment was a stand-up buffet, picking certain choice sectors such as traditional manufacturing and goods, whilst still having appetite for American tech, AI and the new technologies. Whilst the UK is pushing for a single market for goods, unsurprisingly, the EU have no appetite.
Alastair spoke frankly as a friend would, about the frustration and sadness in Brussels and with Swedish colleagues regarding Brexit. He left us with no doubt that “no one in Brussels is interested in UK politics”. Self-exclusion from cooperation, friendly relationships, leading, taking responsibility is “unforgivable”, he said.
The way back into Europe for the UK? This would be very difficult because it involved a complicated commitment to law, treaties, considered and thus slow decision-making and obligation to a written constitution with judicial oversight at the CJEU. These topics do not make for sexy media headlines. Whilst Alastair noted that a weakness of the EU was inadequate enforcement by the EU commission, the EU has the advantages of being grounded in stability and predictability with five year parliaments and officials elected for set periods. In contrast, in addition to the political tumble dryer that the UK has experienced over the last 10 years since the referendum, the UK is increasingly governed by Henry VIII powers without judicial supervision. Additionally, the risks of the UK fracturing into its constituent nations presents further instability.
Alastair emphasised, with regret, that in the eyes of the EU, the UK is not “special”. The EU is dealing with other third countries who want to join the EU, including those who are getting frustrated at the time it is taking. Iceland, Moldova, Ukraine, Turkey, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia. He suggested that it is an illusion that the UK can re-join the EU on a “cherry picking” basis. “Re-set” and “dynamic realignment” mean nothing legal. Further, the EU is moving faster on regulation of many sectors than the UK. Which sectors would the UK dynamically align with? In Brussels, the damage of Brexit has not been forgotten. The EU can obtain benefits of UK contribution to shared defence and security through NATO. For the UK to re-join the EU there would almost certainly have to be a referendum according to Article 49 TEU in order for the EU to confidently negotiate with the UK who would have to fulfil the four Copenhagen requirements. And then there is the Acquis Communautaire with its broad vision and constantly evolving compromises; a very significant bone of contention.
Ultimately Sir Ivan was less gloomy. The journey of his logic took the audience through difficult territory. He was of the view that Brussels need to change and upgrade their way of doing things in the face of current global threats. He opined that, like the UK, the EU is facing existential threats and apparent hostility from the US, China and Russia. Against that background the UK ought to be at the centre of European security. If the UK was under a Farage or Badenoch administration, then there is a good chance that the UK would leave the ECtHR which would cause the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement to unravel. Farage and Badenoch would further diverge from the EU and try to cleave closer to the USA. The primacy of politics trumps all.
Sir Ivan was of the view that the EU would never allow the UK to have a “Swiss option” relationship. The Norwegian model would not work for the UK’s very different economy. Nor would dynamic alignment on the “old style” economy with exclusions for tech and AI. The potential process of rejoining the EU would be very tricky, including negotiations around the budget, the euro, Schengen; a total dogs dinner, potentially. However, existential threats could concentrate minds and overcome Brussels inertia. Alastair emphasised that Brexit had re-imposed frontier-related costs and it was the small and medium enterprises in the UK which were suffering. Nonetheless, it was the environment external to the UK and the EU which was affecting the “internal discussion”. Sir Ivan also pointed out that “events” can overcome inertia very quickly.
Ultimately as Erik had to call time and the Ambassador’s closing remarks translated to not to let sleeping dogs lie. Rather, we were exhorted to dynamically align around generous Swedish refreshments and to continue the conversation with the suggestion that we come back for more in-depth analysis at a future date when we could stomach it! The foundations of the EU were laid in the disaster of the second world war. Let’s hope it does not take another existential disaster for the UK to be more fully aligned with the European family of nations.
The ambassador’s mutt’s canine philosophy, had she been asked, would have been one of basic principle. If the UK wants to get its paws under the EU table, then the UK have to be an expert guard-dog; guardian of the EU constitution, as well as physical territory, but probably better that the bark was worse than the bite. There is a need to constantly care for and roundup the flock to prevent the problem of lost sheep. And above all to be a faithful friend.
