Ms Nandy said Britain should honour its veterans by creating new opportunities for future generations “through closeness and collaboration with our allies”.

Ahead of Remembrance Sunday commemorations at the Cenotaph, the Culture Secretary said the UK had seen 80 years of peace, adding that current Britons were “about to raise the first generation for whom fighting a war really is part of history”.

But critics have slammed her remarks, accusing her of using Remembrance Sunday to make an “EU membership pitch”.

Reform Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick said on social media that both Ms Nandy and Andy Burnham had “failed so badly to meet the moment”.

He said: “On Remembrance Sunday, Lisa Nandy has claimed that no one in Britain has had to fight a war since the Second World War.

“What about the 7,193 British soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in conflicts ranging from the Korean War to Afghanistan?

“While she erases their service, the country will never forget their bravery.

“Remembrance Sunday is a sacred day, not to be cynically used by Labour to justify closer ties to the EU.

“Whatever the merits of their argument – and I believe reopening the Brexit wars is both a colossal waste of energy and a strategic disaster when national sovereignty is more important than ever – this is not the day for it.”

Conservative Party Chairman Kevin Hollinrake has now urged the Culture Secretary to withdraw her remarks and apologise.

He said: “Remembrance Sunday is a day for the nation to stand together in silence and honour those who gave everything for our country.

“It is not a day for a Labour minister to try to make an EU membership pitch.

“Our veterans did not fight for a student exchange scheme.

“Using their sacrifice to clear a £570million cheque to Brussels is tone deaf and frankly shameful.”

The Government will provide up to £400million through the British Council for schools, youth groups and sports teams, with more than £30million earmarked for youth projects in areas with historically low participation.

Labour says it has secured a 30 per cent discount on participation costs for 2027, saving taxpayers around £240 million.

Britain left the Erasmus+ scheme in 2020 under Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal and was replaced by the Turing Scheme, which was scrapped when the Government announced the new Erasmus+ deal.

Ms Nandy said: “This Remembrance Sunday, we come together to reflect and honour the sacrifices that our Armed Forces made in the First and Second World Wars, and continue to make today.

“We are about to raise the first generation for whom fighting a war really is part of history. Our future generations must know the significance of those who served in our national story, that they forged a path for friendship and cooperation that meant no one in our country has had to fight a war since.

“It is our duty to ensure that the immense courage of those who have served our country is never forgotten. They went to war to give us 80 years of peace.

“We are about to raise the first generation for whom fighting a war really is part of history. Our future generations must know the significance of those who served in our national story, that they forged a path for friendship and cooperation that meant no one in our country has had to fight a war since.”

She added: “In that spirit, this Government is building stronger, better ties with our EU neighbours. After six years away, the UK rejoining the Erasmus Plus programme is a clear symbol of our ambition and intent.”

Veterans have now also slammed her remarks as “rather tone deaf”.

Col Richard Kemp, a former head of British forces in Afghanistan, told The Telegraph: “On Remembrance Sunday, it is not about Erasmus or anything like that – it is all about remembering and commemorating the people who made the supreme sacrifice. The focus of that should not be taken away by the Government.”

And Maj Gen Timothy Cross CBE, a retired British Army officer and military logistics expert, accused the Culture Secretary of using Remembrance Sunday for “political point scoring”.

‘Tone Deaf’: Labour Accused of Using Remembrance Sunday to ‘Pitch EU Membership’

Remembrance Sunday is one of the most significant occasions in the United Kingdom. Every year, people across the country come together to remember and honour the soldiers who lost their lives in the First and Second World Wars, as well as those who sacrificed themselves in later military conflicts. It is traditionally a solemn day of national unity, respect and reflection, when political differences are expected to be put aside. However, this year’s Remembrance Sunday has become the centre of political controversy after the Labour government was accused of using the occasion to promote closer relations with the European Union (EU). The incident has raised important questions about political responsibility, historical respect and the appropriate relationship between national remembrance and contemporary political agendas.

The controversy began when Lisa Nandy, the UK’s Culture Secretary, announced that Britain would rejoin the Erasmus+ programme. This European initiative provides opportunities for students and young people to study, receive training and gain work experience in other European countries. The programme is expected to return to the UK in January, following the country’s departure from it in 2020 after Brexit. Nandy argued that closer cooperation with European neighbours would create valuable opportunities for younger generations. She also connected this announcement with the sacrifices made by British soldiers during the Second World War, suggesting that building peaceful relationships with former allies was one way to honour their legacy. According to her, the courage of previous generations should inspire today’s society to promote friendship, cooperation and international understanding.

Nevertheless, her statement immediately attracted criticism from opposition politicians, particularly members of the Conservative Party. Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative Party chairman, accused Labour of being “tone deaf” and using a solemn national occasion to promote its political ambitions. He argued that Remembrance Sunday should be dedicated entirely to remembering fallen soldiers rather than advertising government policies or discussing Britain’s relationship with the EU. He also questioned the connection between the sacrifices made by veterans and a student exchange programme, arguing that their service should not be used to justify government spending on European initiatives. From his perspective, linking the two issues was inappropriate and disrespectful to those who had given their lives for their country.

This criticism reflects a wider concern about the importance of separating national commemorations from party politics. Remembrance Sunday is not an ordinary political event. It represents the collective memory of a nation and provides an opportunity for people from different political, religious and social backgrounds to unite in honouring the dead. Many veterans and their families regard the occasion as deeply personal because it reminds them of the suffering, courage and sacrifices experienced during wartime. Therefore, introducing controversial political discussions into such an event may be perceived as an attempt to exploit powerful emotions for political purposes.

In addition, politicians have a responsibility to understand the historical significance of the occasions on which they make public announcements. Even if a government policy is beneficial, the timing and presentation of that policy can influence how the public receives it. Announcing a European cooperation initiative on Remembrance Sunday may unintentionally create the impression that the government is using the sacrifices of previous generations to support its own political objectives. In this sense, the criticism against Labour deserves serious consideration. Respect for history requires more than mentioning historical events; it also requires sensitivity towards the people whose lives were directly affected by them.

However, it would also be unfair to assume that Lisa Nandy’s intentions were necessarily disrespectful. She defended her statement by arguing that Remembrance Sunday should not become an opportunity for political arguments. She explained that the purpose of the Erasmus+ programme was to help young people understand the contributions made by previous generations and strengthen relationships with Britain’s European allies. She also emphasised that the Second World War was not fought by Britain alone. Soldiers from many European countries worked together against tyranny, and their cooperation helped establish the foundations for a more peaceful continent.

There is a reasonable argument behind this position. One of the most important lessons of the Second World War is that conflict causes enormous suffering, while international cooperation can help prevent future tragedies. The war demonstrated the dangers of extreme nationalism, hostility and political division. Consequently, promoting friendship between nations can be considered a meaningful way of respecting those who fought for freedom and peace. From this perspective, encouraging young people to develop international relationships is not necessarily a misuse of historical memory. Instead, it may represent an attempt to translate the lessons of history into practical action.

Furthermore, the Erasmus+ programme offers several potential benefits to British society. Educational exchanges allow students to experience different cultures, improve their language skills and develop a broader understanding of the world. They can also encourage independence, confidence and communication skills, which are increasingly important in an interconnected global economy. For students who cannot afford international travel independently, publicly supported exchange opportunities may make overseas education more accessible. The programme also creates opportunities for schools, universities, apprentices and youth organisations to establish long-term partnerships with European institutions.

The UK’s return to Erasmus+ should also be understood within the broader context of Brexit. Since leaving the European Union, Britain has experienced significant changes in its political and economic relationship with European countries. Although Brexit was supported by many people who believed it would strengthen national sovereignty, others have expressed concerns about reduced opportunities for cooperation, trade and educational exchange. Rejoining Erasmus+ does not mean that Britain is rejoining the European Union. It is a specific agreement designed to facilitate educational and cultural cooperation. This distinction is important because critics sometimes present closer cooperation with Europe as though it automatically represents an attempt to reverse Brexit.

Nevertheless, the financial implications of the programme should not be ignored. Public money must be spent carefully, particularly when governments face pressure to improve public services, support the healthcare system and address the cost of living. The Conservative Party has questioned the amount of money involved, referring to a payment of approximately £570 million. Meanwhile, the government has argued that it negotiated a reduction in participation costs for 2027, which it estimates will save taxpayers around £240 million. These competing claims demonstrate why the programme deserves proper public scrutiny. Citizens should be able to evaluate its costs, benefits and long-term outcomes rather than simply accepting political statements from either side.

Another important issue concerns the way politicians use history to support modern arguments. Historical events should be remembered accurately and respectfully, rather than selectively interpreted to strengthen a particular political position. The sacrifices of British soldiers during the Second World War cannot be reduced to support for or opposition to the European Union. Those soldiers came from different backgrounds and may have held different political beliefs. Their motivations were complex, involving the defence of freedom, the protection of their families and resistance against aggression. It is therefore inappropriate for any political party to claim that their sacrifices automatically support its present-day policies.

Moreover, Remembrance Sunday should recognise not only those who died in the two World Wars but also British service personnel who lost their lives in subsequent conflicts, including Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan. Their contributions are equally important to the country’s military history. Political leaders must be careful not to suggest that Britain has enjoyed complete freedom from war since 1945. Although the country has not experienced another world war on its own territory, British forces have continued to participate in military operations overseas. Recognising these sacrifices is essential to maintaining an accurate and inclusive national memory.

In my opinion, both