Erasmus+ and EU-UK Relations: An Interview with the President of the YEM
In this interview, the President of the Young European Movement UK (YEM), Alfred Quantrill reflects on its role in the UK’s return to Erasmus+, offering insight into elite-led advocacy, the political economy of youth mobility, and the broader strategic implications for EU-UK relations.
The United Kingdom’s return to the Erasmus+ programme marks one of the clearest signals to date of recalibration in post-Brexit EU-UK relations. While the programme is often framed narrowly in terms of student mobility and educational exchange, its significance extends well beyond the education sector. The programme sits at the intersection of skills policy, soft power, and long-term diplomatic alignment, making its re-adoption a politically meaningful step in the UK’s evolving relationship with Europe.
Since the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, successive governments have grappled with the question of how and to what extent the UK should re-engage with European institutions. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government introduced the Turing Scheme, seeking to replicate aspects of Erasmus+ while asserting the UK’s own policy autonomy, yet its lack of reciprocity and weaker institutional integration highlighted the trade-offs inherent in post-Brexit arrangements. The decision to return to Erasmus+ therefore reflects not only a reassessment of policy effectiveness, but also a broader recognition of the strategic value of structured cooperation with European partners.
This interview with Alfred Quantrill provides insight into how civil society, particularly youth-led organisations, has sought to shape that trajectory by shedding light on the mechanics of policy advocacy in the UK context, the balance between elite influence and public opinion, and the extent to which initiatives such as Erasmus+ should be understood as part of a wider process of European re-engagement. In doing so, it offers a window into both the opportunities and constraints facing efforts to redefine Britain’s place within Europe.
Elite Advocacy and the Erasmus+ Campaign
Q: Could you describe your process in campaigning for Erasmus+? What was your role, and by extension the YEM’s role in the successful return to the programme?
A: “My predecessor Klajdi began YEM’s campaign for Erasmus+. Our organisation has focused more on developing political skills for those with a strong interest in politics from a pro-European perspective, and they were very interested in campaigning on the issue – it’s probably not something most people knew or cared about in 2023, but I’m glad our members did!
A lot of people campaigning in the Erasmus+ space (and generally in the pro-European space) come from more senior backgrounds, generally from the ages of 50 and above. We had a lot of people who helped make Erasmus happen in the first place involved in the campaign to return to the programme. Those people have a lot of valuable experience and knowledge, of course, and with their connections to policymakers after a career in politics and business were able to connect us to people at the highest level who wanted to hear the youth voice on the matter.
As seen in our Parliamentary event in January, YEM is able to punch above its weight considering its size. Most small youth organisations cannot get 50 MPs and a dozen Lords to attend an event in Parliament. This is largely because we are closely tied into more ‘institutional’ organisations made up of very well-connected individuals, most notably the European Movement, which almost everyone seriously involved in the Erasmus+ campaign was part of, or working with, in some way.
YEM was the initiative behind, and carried out much of the organisation for, a petition that we brought to Parliament with fifty thousand signatures calling for the UK to rejoin Erasmus+. That is certainly not a negligible figure. However, it is important to recognise that the campaign did not operate through building mass public pressure. Instead, it relied on those elite connections to ensure that, when, as many expected, a more pro-European government came into power, Erasmus would already be positioned as a priority. In that sense, the campaign was a complete success, because that is exactly what happened. YEM was able to contribute to that pressure on politicians by being present at key events.
I wouldn’t say we did anything decisive, but equally, no single organisation did. We were part of a collective applying sustained, high-level pressure on policymakers. YEM also has strong connections with the EU delegation, and we have been invited to meet EU diplomats and MEPs to discuss the views of young people in the UK on this issue. I am not entirely sure how much influence that has on negotiations in practice, but we have been consistently told that it is valuable, so who am I to say otherwise.
My own role involved a lot of activities. I appeared on Sky News during the May 19th summit to discuss the importance of Erasmus+, and I have met with a sizeable number of MPs through the European Movement, as well as through their attendance at YEM events. I have also met with MEPs, among others.“
Erasmus+ as a Signal of Strategic Re-engagement
Q: In January, you addressed the National Campaign for Erasmus+, the APPG on Europe and the Young European Movement in Parliament and commented on the diplomatic shifts that the return to Erasmus+ marked. Could you tell us what problem returning to Erasmus+ is trying to solve? What is lost if it is treated as an educational policy rather than a strategic choice about the UK’s place in Europe?
A: “Erasmus is a very important educational policy and forms the foundation of a lot of the EU’s broader ‘future-building’ work. It contributes to shaping younger generations who, when they participate in civil society, vote, and become policymakers, will carry a core positive memory of the EU. That is a central part of its importance.
At present, the most significant aspect of the UK rejoining Erasmus+ is that it signals the government is becoming more serious about re-engagement with the EU. Since our January celebration in Parliament, more senior government figures have begun discussing issues such as the customs union and the single market, which appears promising. However, Erasmus+ is particularly valuable because it represents a concrete step, rather than rhetorical positioning or discussion.
Erasmus+ is also addressing issues of skills and opportunity. The UK faces substantial problems regarding economic inactivity, and any programme that equips people with employable skills is beneficial. However, it is important not to overstate its impact. Erasmus is a first step; it will not affect enough people on its own to bring the EU back into central public life. What it does do is signal that the UK is starting to walk up that staircase to the EU, rather than being particularly a major instrument of EU-UK integration. We shouldn’t kid ourselves that Erasmus is going to turn every youth into a committed pro-European, or change the economy.
Historically, the UK did not make full use of Erasmus+ due to limited grassroots engagement. Whether that will be repeated remains to be seen. The current focus of campaigners is therefore on ensuring that the UK maximises participation, including through the development of resources and infrastructure to support engagement. This has always been understood as a two-stage process.”
Public Opinions and Political Sustainability
Q: With Reform UK’s upward trend, do you expect to see political resistance in the future? How do you build a support base that survives the next election cycle?
A: “I am very sceptical of the idea that Reform’s upward trend will continue. Recent internal developments suggest that the party is not currently well-organised, as seen with Rupert Lowe’s split-off and the seemingly frequent council scandals. While I am sure it’s likely to remain present in British politics, I don’t think Farage is going to be Prime Minister by the next election. It is difficult to see it sustaining current polling levels over several years. Though there is plenty of commentary on this.
What pertains to youth issues that I see less commentary on is what I would describe as the ‘myth’ of the ‘young reform man.’ The idea that large numbers of young people, particularly young men, are shifting toward the far right is overstated. Polling indicates relatively low levels of support for Reform among younger age groups. Reform is polling at 6% with ages 18-24s right now, and only at 11% with 25-49s according to YouGov between 29-30th March. The key issue is not converting committed Brexit supporters, but mobilising those who already believe the UK would benefit from closer relations with the EU. Around 80% of young people and a majority of the wider population hold this view. In that sense, the underlying support base already exists and the public pro European battle is already won.
The challenge is that, for most voters, EU relations are not a high priority issue. The task is therefore to elevate its importance within the political agenda. That is a difficult objective, particularly given competing domestic concerns. This is why the European Movement is using the strategy of targeting politicians and policymakers, rather than trying to build a mass movement, where support already exists. In an open democratic system, it is often more practical to encourage politicians to act on positions they already privately support rather than to attempt to build a large-scale public movement.
In that sense, I’m not worried about whether or not the idea that we should have a better relationship with the semi-superpower on our border who is our largest trade partner is going to survive the election because most people already think it – it seems like common sense. What needs to be done is translating this existing belief held across most of the voting public into political action.“
Costs, Contributions, and Value
Q: What do you think about the reported £570 million contribution, and the risk of rising costs?
A: “£570 million is good value. It is likely that the UK will participate as a third country, meaning it will not have a role in shaping the programme’s structure. As I understand it, contributions are recalculated annually based on participation levels.
If costs increase, that would likely reflect greater participation. Rising contributions should not necessarily be viewed negatively. Historically, the UK did not fully utilise the programme. Higher costs could indicate that it is finally doing so.
Given the relatively limited funding allocated to the youth sector in the UK, increased investment in programmes such as Erasmus+ would be welcome. Yes, there is a risk costs will rise, but I would say that’s a feature, not a bug of Erasmus+. This country badly needs more money diverted towards the youth sector.”
Turing vs Erasmus+: Policy Design and Reciprocity
Q: What is the future of Erasmus+ alongside the Turing Scheme?
“It seems unlikely that both schemes will continue in parallel. Given the government’s cost-saving mood, it is plausible that Erasmus+ could replace the Turing Scheme. Johnson’s claims that Erasmus lacked reciprocity was overstated but it is true that the UK was contributing more than it received, largely due to limited promotion and engagement. Rather than how the UK used to engage with the EU when it was a member, i.e. taking credit for successes and blaming it for failures, schemes like Erasmus were never promoted sufficiently enough to be successful. Erasmus+ offers advantages typical of international cooperation, although these can be difficult to quantify.
The key factor will be whether the UK government actively supports participation and improves accessibility, rather than relying on voluntary efforts. If that is achieved, the programme is more likely to deliver proportional value.“
The End Goal
Q: What is the end goal for YEM?
A: “The end goal for YEM is for the UK to rejoin the European Union, and uplift that union to be the most successful project of common prosperity among nations there has ever been, for the end of defending and promoting the values we hold in common with other Europeans, in a world which is becoming increasingly hostile to those values on all fronts.
The UK’s history is deeply intertwined with that of continental Europe. Attempts to define the UK as fundamentally separate overlook the extent of shared political, economic, and historical experiences.
In an increasingly multipolar world, it is important to recognise that the UK itself isn’t significant enough to be one of those poles. Alternative strategies, like CANZUK, and closer alignment with Commonwealth partners, face structural limitations. By contrast, the EU is obviously the richer, more populous continental power right next to us, than Australia and Canada, two countries on the other side of the world.
For the UK to retain meaningful autonomy, that is, the capacity to defend itself and author laws in its citizens interests, the future of the UK must be with the EU. Otherwise, there is a risk of dependency on external powers. The end goal for YEM is to avoid that by bringing the UK into the only union that will give the UK the respect and strength it needs to promote its interests.“
Final Notes
The interview highlights a central tension in the UK’s return to Erasmus+: while the programme is operationally limited in its scope, its political and strategic signalling far exceeds its immediate policy impact. As the President of the YEM, Alfred Quantrill makes clear, Erasmus+ is less a transformative instrument in itself than an early indicator of a broader shift in the UK’s posture towards European cooperation.
Two themes emerge with particular clarity. First, the pathway through which Erasmus+ was secured displays the significance of elite-driven advocacy in British political environments. Though the UK already has substantial pro-European sympathy, the campaign did not focus on mass mobilisation. It instead relied on sustained engagement with policymakers and institutional networks, reflecting both the opportunities and constraints of advancing European policy in a context where public support exists but remains politically latent. Second, the long-term success of Erasmus+ will depend less on its formal reinstatement than on its domestic implementation. The UK’s historical underutilisation of the programme points to a structural challenge: participation, accessibility, and awareness will ultimately determine whether the programme delivers meaningful value. Rising costs therefore are not indicative of failure but of effective uptake.
More broadly, Erasmus+ should be understood as a singular component within a gradual and potentially uneven process of re-engagement. Its reintroduction does not, in itself, resolve the wider strategic question of the UK’s relationship with the European Union. However, it does signal a shift from rhetorical positioning towards incremental, policy-based alignment. Whether this trajectory continues towards deeper institutional cooperation or eventual reintegration will ultimately depend on the extent to which political actors are willing to translate existing public sentiment into sustained policy direction.
