None of the papers out so far are headlining on Farage . There still the DT and the Daily Mirror to come .
Front page (though not the lead) in the Telegraph. Including this gem;
A spokesman for the party said: “These inaccurate claims come from a disgruntled former councillor. The party was disgusted by his inappropriate sexual behaviour with women, and he was expelled several months ago."
I'm not sure if that was the catch-phrase. But I've just had a flashback to "Dusty Bin!" which I don't think I've even thought of since the original broadcasts.
The great Andras Schiff, featured here, recently announced he would no longer play in the US, owing to President Donald Trump's "unbelievable bullying" of other nations and leaders, especially President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine...
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
A good way to maintain your ignorance I suppose.
Because things are playing out exactly as Dan Hannan predicted, right? One thing I have earned from working in the financial services sector is don't keep listening to people who are wrong about everything. Not if you want to protect your clients' money and keep your own job. As a country we can't afford to keep making stupid decisions. The world is an unforgiving place for people who won't learn from their mistakes and correct them.
So why on Earth have you ever voted for any of the main political parties in the UK? They all screw up and none of them ever seem to learn. Nor, it seems, do you.
I'm not a fan of that kind of ad hominem. I am okay with my judgement. The two big mistakes the UK has made in recent decades, Iraq and Brexit, I got right.
It is no more an ad hominem than you caliming peple should ignore anyone who voted Leave. You question our judgement, I question yours.
NEW: Nigel Farage has been reported to the Met Police by a former member of his campaign team over claims of falsified election expenses in Clacton last year.
Richard Everett alleges up to £9,000 of under or misreported expenses, including to do up a Reform-themed office bar.
If Farage was charged and convicted he could have to give up his seat and would likely be unable to stand again as an MP at the next general election. Though that is a big If 'Apart from meeting the qualifications for standing for election, you must also not be disqualified...... You have been disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (which covers corrupt or illegal electoral practices and offences relating to donations). The disqualification for an illegal practice begins from the date a person has been reported guilty by an election court or convicted and lasts for three years.7 The disqualification for a corrupt practice begins from the date a person has been reported guilty by an election court or convicted and lasts for five years.' https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-uk-parliamentary-elections-great-britain/what-you-need-know-you-stand-a-candidate/qualifications-and-disqualifications-standing-election/disqualifications
Or at least he could be subject to a recall and by election 'Section 1 sets out the circumstances in which the Speaker of the House of Commons – or, in certain cases, their deputies – would trigger the recall process: A conviction for providing false or misleading expenses claims.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015
None of the papers out so far are headlining on Farage . There still the DT and the Daily Mirror to come .
Front page (though not the lead) in the Telegraph. Including this gem;
A spokesman for the party said: “These inaccurate claims come from a disgruntled former councillor. The party was disgusted by his inappropriate sexual behaviour with women, and he was expelled several months ago."
A thread which is necessary reading for any remaining apologists for the geostrategic nonsense the US administration is currently perpetrating.
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵 Dear Americans, Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
The UKs growth since leaving the EU compares favourably with other larger countries of the remaining 27 .
The UKs growth would be even better if it had stayed in the EU .
Yup. But the first is unarguable, being the out-turn. The second is hypothetical.
Except the first is wrong!
Nope.
We left the EU in 2020.
If you take the 2019 GDP numbers (the last year before Brexit) and the 2025 GDP numbers then the UK has risen 28%.
Germany has risen 26.5% France has risen 23% Italy has risen 20%
What currency are you using and how about GDP per capital...
Basically there are many ways to skin a cat and GDP is a prime example of pick the figure to generate the story you want to write.
All in dollars which is the normal way to report these things for comparison.
And growth is measured in GDP. If you want to move the goalposts because you don't like the answer then you have already lost.
So, while I agree with you mostly, measuring GDP relative to a foreign currency means your measured GDP (which don't match living standards) swing around with the exchange rate.
If UK wages rise 4%, and prices rise 2%, and the Pound falls 10% against the Dollar, are we really going to say UK GDP fell by 8%?
Using dollar weighted is useful, but mostly it's useful in the context of GDP measured at Purchasing Power Parity, otherwise you're mostly measuring exchange rate fluctuations (which are *far* greater than GDP moves in any given year).
Informal discussions have taken place inside No 10 on rejoining customs union as quickest way to boost growth
What do they know about growth? They spent the best part of a year talking down the economy and were surprised that confidence collapsed.
If they do it, the aim wouldn't really be "to boost growth" but to polarise the electorate and try to build a coalition based winning as many of the 48% as possible.
They probably will. As I've said before, many times, Starmer was a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in opposition and he's now a Tedious Tactical Triangulator in office.
He will end up neither trusted nor respected, so it might not even work no matter what he does.
Spare us the insulting language, Casino.
It's time you recognised that Brexiteers and their project are deeply unpopular. You shat the bed for all of us. Time to be a little less dismissive of those who want to change the sheets.
I don't read any insulting language in Casino's post - am I missing something?
I read his post simply as a rather cynical one that Starmer may well benefit from a tack towards the EU, despite being rather disliked, but that he might be so disliked by that point that people won't be willing to hold their noses.
I for one would put up with a pretty crap next few years policy-wise if a closer economic and security relationship with the EU was on the ballot next election.
Yes, some people have never made their peace with the result, and the push for Rejoin—in whatever packaging—still owes as much to wounded pride as to policy. For a certain set, the Leave vote wasn’t just wrong; it was an affront to the natural order in which they are always ‘right.’ Losing to people they openly despise is something they still haven’t processed. The irony is that the pomposity and arrogance that turns so many off remains entirely invisible to the because, in their minds, ‘the facts’ excuse everything - in fact, they provide an excuse for it. That in turn drives a vociferous reaction.
But the politics of 2025 aren’t the politics of 2015. That world isn’t coming back. A pro-EU tilt might help Starmer consolidate his core vote, but it risks bleeding plenty of Reform-facing marginals.
He’d shore up his presence in Parliament, but it’s not a route to another majority.
I can't speak for others but I think you do your opponents a disservice by referring to wounded pride.
Amongst those I spend time with (mostly teachers, and most were on the Remain side) Brexit doesn't really get talked about any more.
But I do think you are putting blinkers on if you only talk about pomposity and arrogance and discount the much more rational view that we have harmed ourselves economically and in relation to our security by divorcing from Europe just at the moment when other reliable global partners have imploded.
As a Remainer I dread the idea of British politics being consumed by Brexit again, and I still think there's a lot that can be done in Britain to help the British economy.
However, the evidence is beginning to stack up that isolating the British economy from the single market is having a cumulative and growing impact that needs to be addressed in one way or another.
But I think it's right to say that Starmer is likely to be more motivated by political positioning than economics. If he was motivated by economics there's a lot he could do that would be less contentious.
It isn't at all. It's not even close to being one of our main problems, as GDP growth charts show since 2008.
It's a big thing because VALUES. That's it. The economics is viewed to be a useful stick to sidestep this.
I think the domestic British market is too small, and global trade is trending to become less free, and this is why being divorced from the single market is a problem for Britain establishing industries in new technologies.
I wouldn't say it's the biggest problem, but I think it's probably a big enough problem that you can't just ignore it. Some unreconciled Remainers will attempt to use the problem to push for rejoining, when there are other potential ways forward that have a better chance of winning majority public support.
Obviously hard-core Leavers may make a value judgement that the economic costs are an acceptable price for freedom, but I never thought Britain wasn't free as an EU member, so I don't accept that value judgement.
That may be what you think, but there is a distinct lack of evidence to substantiate those thoughts.
Britain is not the sick man of Europe, Germany is.
Britain has outgrown the Eurozone, despite Brexit.
The idea we would have outgrown them even more, if only we were shackled to their low growing economy, is entirely theoretical and without an iota of actual substantial evidence.
How on earth do you get the idea that Britain has outgrown the EU.
There is a really simple test as to the strength of a country, you look at the exchange rate.
In 2015 flying round Europe I got €1.40 to £1. After Brexit in 2017 I got about €1.25. Last year it was €1.18 and today it’s about €1.13 (or it was). Heck in Prague a Happy Meal (we needed the loo and Mrs Eek need some quick protein) a Happy Meal cost £6
Two beliefs on the populist right;
1 Britain's GDP performance since 2016 has been fine and Brexit wasn't a problem.
2 Britain's GDP has been artificially inflated by the immigration spike.
They can't both be true.
Who said its been fine? Its been better than Europe, but Europe's hasn't been fine, which is why we were right to leave that failing institution.
2 is easily resolved by looking at per capita data.
Germany GPD per capita: 2016 $42,961; 2024 $55,800; 29.9% up
Eurozone GDP per capita: 2016 $35,232; 2024 $46,274; 31.3% up
UK GDP per capita: 2016 $40,988; 2024 $52,636; 28.4% up
Appreciate the effort everyone but using data is the most ridiculously weak economic analysis you'll ever come across. There is absolutely no way you can prove this point either way without coming up with some kind of counterfactual where the UK stayed in the EU, and given we've had COVID and Ukraine since then, this is very tricky indeed.
And from when do we even start modelling this? When the chance of Brexit appeared in the first place, and investment decisions started to change? When we voted to leave? When we left? When we sorted out delays at Dover? What indicators do you use - trade volumes? GDP per capita? Do you weight by sector? - Germany is much more dependent on energy, manufacturing etc etc
Happily, we do have some economists having a stab at it taking all this into account. I'd much rather go with their assessment than this facile, juvenile nonsense.
Clearly exiting your biggest market is going to decrease trade and make the country a less attractive place to invest in. So it's a question what number you put on your loss. Economist models converge on a 6% to 8% figure but if you find that precision spurious, you could just say the loss is significant but not disastrous.
FWIW I don't think the economic loss is the biggest problem with Brexit.
The issue with this analysis is that it ignores all of the actual reasons many of us voted for Brexit and would do so again.
I would far rather be in a solid economic block with the rest of Europe, but that is not on offer without them sticking their oar into many other areas. For others (though not me) open borders is also an issue.
Those factors may not matter to you, but they matter to the plurality of the British public who will never see us join the EU, and are visible to the member states who would resist even bothering to start negotiations. Even Starmer’s modest current proposals are getting close to the point that Badenoch and Farage could kill them by promising to repeal in three years and making it look like it wasn’t worth the effort to member states.
The analysis is an as objective as possible statement of the economic impact of Brexit. It's perfectly valid to say the economic cost is a price worth paying for reasons that make sense to you.
The apparently firm consensus now is that Brexit was a mistake. Which I believe is the real problem because there's no similar consensus what to do about it. I think If Rejoin was easy we would be on a path to rejoin already. But it's not for a host of reasons, so we're in a situation where most people think Brexit a big mistake, aren't happy living with the mistake, but don't know what to do about it.
A good place for us to start is to stop listening to anybody who was in favour of it.
A good way to maintain your ignorance I suppose.
Because things are playing out exactly as Dan Hannan predicted, right? One thing I have earned from working in the financial services sector is don't keep listening to people who are wrong about everything. Not if you want to protect your clients' money and keep your own job. As a country we can't afford to keep making stupid decisions. The world is an unforgiving place for people who won't learn from their mistakes and correct them.
So why on Earth have you ever voted for any of the main political parties in the UK? They all screw up and none of them ever seem to learn. Nor, it seems, do you.
I'm not a fan of that kind of ad hominem. I am okay with my judgement. The two big mistakes the UK has made in recent decades, Iraq and Brexit, I got right.
It is no more an ad hominem than you caliming peple should ignore anyone who voted Leave. You question our judgement, I question yours.
I was talking about politicians and commentators not randoms on the internet, who nobody pays any attention to anyway. I certainly didn't attack anyone on here personally, but you did, sadly.
The UKs growth since leaving the EU compares favourably with other larger countries of the remaining 27 .
The UKs growth would be even better if it had stayed in the EU .
Yup. But the first is unarguable, being the out-turn. The second is hypothetical.
Except the first is wrong!
Nope.
We left the EU in 2020.
If you take the 2019 GDP numbers (the last year before Brexit) and the 2025 GDP numbers then the UK has risen 28%.
Germany has risen 26.5% France has risen 23% Italy has risen 20%
What currency are you using and how about GDP per capital...
Basically there are many ways to skin a cat and GDP is a prime example of pick the figure to generate the story you want to write.
All in dollars which is the normal way to report these things for comparison.
And growth is measured in GDP. If you want to move the goalposts because you don't like the answer then you have already lost.
So, while I agree with you mostly, measuring GDP relative to a foreign currency means your measured GDP (which don't match living standards) swing around with the exchange rate.
If UK wages rise 4%, and prices rise 2%, and the Pound falls 10% against the Dollar, are we really going to say UK GDP fell by 8%?
Using dollar weighted is useful, but mostly it's useful in the context of GDP measured at Purchasing Power Parity, otherwise you're mostly measuring exchange rate fluctuations (which are *far* greater than GDP moves in any given year).
I wouldn't use GDP in a foreign currency to compare GDP growth differences, for the reasons you describe, namely the volatility in FX rates. Also it doesn't really measure what we are trying to compare, namely the comparative growth of the economy in real terms. First, it is a nominal measure. Second, much of what we produce and consume is not traded internationally. USD values are useful for comparing levels of per capita GDP, but even then PPP measures are preferable in most circumstances.
Comments
A spokesman for the party said: “These inaccurate claims come from a disgruntled former councillor. The party was disgusted by his inappropriate sexual behaviour with women, and he was expelled several months ago."
https://www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk/daily-telegraph-front-page-2025-12-08/
Which perhaps doesn't entirely kill the story stone-dead.
This on the Bach partitas is a lot of fun for Bach enthusiasts:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0j0kjcl
The great Andras Schiff, featured here, recently announced he would no longer play in the US, owing to President Donald Trump's "unbelievable bullying" of other nations and leaders, especially President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine...
We left the EU in 2020.
If you take the 2019 GDP numbers (the last year before Brexit) and the 2025 GDP numbers then the UK has risen 28%.
Germany has risen 26.5%
France has risen 23%
Italy has risen 20%
Basically there are many ways to skin a cat and GDP is a prime example of pick the figure to generate the story you want to write.
'Apart from meeting the qualifications for standing for election, you must also not be disqualified......
You have been disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (which covers corrupt or illegal electoral practices and offences relating to donations). The disqualification for an illegal practice begins from the date a person has been reported guilty by an election court or convicted and lasts for three years.7 The disqualification for a corrupt practice begins from the date a person has been reported guilty by an election court or convicted and lasts for five years.'
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-uk-parliamentary-elections-great-britain/what-you-need-know-you-stand-a-candidate/qualifications-and-disqualifications-standing-election/disqualifications
Or at least he could be subject to a recall and by election 'Section 1 sets out the circumstances in which the Speaker of the House of Commons – or, in certain cases, their deputies – would trigger the recall process: A conviction for providing false or misleading expenses claims.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015
And growth is measured in GDP. If you want to move the goalposts because you don't like the answer then you have already lost.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d01nxg0y0o
Very good that they're trialling this, but will need hundreds of them - it travels at 1-2 knots - but they can stay at sea for 3 months at a time.
Like a semi-mobile SOSUS network.
https://helsing.ai/lura
WARNING: LONG THREAD 🧵
Dear Americans,
Your political and media class has sold you a very convenient fairy tale for decades - the tale of how your tax dollars pay to defend freeloading Europe.
While it's an emotionally satisfying narrative, it's also wrong.
THE U.S. DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE EUROPEAN DEFENCE.
You are not running a charity, you are running an empire. And empires are costly.
Your forward deployments, your bases, your carrier groups, etc. - they are the pillars of a global security architecture that mainly serves you: to protect your trade routes, your currency, your corporate supply chains, your ability to project force anywhere on the planet in hours and days, not months.
Let’s walk through this like adults, and not emotional toddlers, shall we?..
https://x.com/BiankaB12/status/1997407679556485515
If UK wages rise 4%, and prices rise 2%, and the Pound falls 10% against the Dollar, are we really going to say UK GDP fell by 8%?
Using dollar weighted is useful, but mostly it's useful in the context of GDP measured at Purchasing Power Parity, otherwise you're mostly measuring exchange rate fluctuations (which are *far* greater than GDP moves in any given year).
NEW THREAD