Two discordant thoughts on all this - events like the pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine would likely have happened were we still in the EU. They were both (and are) economically disruptive and would have been so whatever our EU membership status.
Second, we couldn't go on as we were with our rebate-obsessed, half-hearted, mean spirited membership. The EU had long moved on from being simply a free trading bloc or "Common Market" with which we were largely content. The social, cultural and economic impacts of Freedom of Movement in particular led to significant resentment.
There were indeed only two coherent positions - we should either have stayed out completely (though wishing the overall project well and establishing a solid working relationship) or joined in enthusiastically embracing Schengen, the Euro and accepting the push to full economic and political Union. We chose to adopt neither and wasted two generations arguing about it.
Did we waste 2 generations arguing about it? There was a small, admittedly growing, minority (Goldsmith's party then UKIP) of rightwingers who grumbled about it. As a whole the UK generally got on with it, up until the 2008 (US bank triggered) financial crash, and from my memory generally prosperous and content, there was some resentment among trades about the increased competition and in other low wage sectors, the EU labour has been replaced by other migrant labour. Then there was the Brexit referendum, following which we've been in angst over the terms of leaving, then not implementing the full terms of leaving because we'd be totally f****d and now, without having ever fully brexited on "our" terms, we're realigning while having tantrums about "punishment beatings" as the realities of no longer being members of the EU are slowly implemented.
COVID, Ukraine and the US becoming a total basket-case have been such large externalities that pre and post "leaving" comparisons have been rendered meaningless, even if we had properly left. In reality we're still in transition, the only uncertainty is whether we're in the transition of leaving or returning.
I have come to the conclusion that we should rejoin.
It's taken me a while to get to that point - I've very much been on a journey and my general thinking has been that the price that would be demanded as a condition to lock the UK back into the EU probably makes it unpalatable to the majority - but I think this is by now by far our best option in an uncertain world.
I didn't support Brexit in the referendum (though I did appreciate some of the arguments on the leave side), but I did believe that the referendum result should be honoured and I disliked the political game-playing that followed. But I think the world has changed so much since 2016 and our politicians have all failed to grasp any potential opportunities that may have arisen (the only real benefit would have been to go bold and undercut in many areas, which is of itself a high risk strategy), to the point where it looks like we are now going to remain peripherally aligned but with no real influence on direction - the worst of all worlds that most of us wanted to avoid.
At the same time we are increasingly learning that we cannot expect our interests to align with the US (even if Trump is gone in 2028 there is little doubt that his politics will still pervade at the top levels of leadership for some time, even if the GOP lose power at the federal level in the immediate term).
Europe now needs to seriously start thinking about its security (economic, energy, border etc) and its place in the world. There is a huge opportunity for it to present itself as a stable bulwark and a safe place to do business. There is a lot that the UK can bring to the table in that discussion - I am not saying we hold "all the cards" but we do bring with us clear strengths in finance, skills, language, defence and security etc. The EU needs to reform, but we should play a role and part in that, not as an observer.
And finally, from a pure electoral standpoint, a rejoin referendum is surely the rabbit out of the hat that Labour need? It's the one weapon in their arsenal that could change the game, the one thing that enables them to present a clear differentiator and choice at the next GE and bring back wavering voters. It's radical, it will upset some people, but given where they sit in the polls surely it makes increasing sense.
It also hands the red wall swing seats Labour won in 2024 on a plate to Farage and some more middle class Leave seats back to the Tories
Those seats are currently "gone" in any event. It is for those who support rejoin to make the case to those areas - have they benefitted from Brexit currently?
What I never understood was, having won the Referendum, why the Conservative Party chose, as its leader to succeed Cameron, someone who had backed (albeit quietly) the Remain side.
It was as though the Leavers in the party, having won the electoral argument, decided to metaphorically disembowel themselves and leave the field to May and her campaign manager, Gavin Williamson, who seemed like some kind of political genius such was the depth of the rabbit hole into which the party had descended.
Who did the Leavers put up - Andrea Leadsom, once Gove and Johnson had shot themselves in the foot and stabbed each other in the back at the same time?
Had Johnson or Gove taken over after Cameron with a clearly articulated vision of what leaving the EU was about, it might have been easier to manage a Commons where there was no majority to leave the EU or force an election to win a clear mandate to leave - would a Johnson or Gove led Party have done better than May did in an alternative 2017 election?
Hard to see how they wouldn't.
Why wouldn't or couldn't the Conservative Leavers take the victory they had obtained (which had been obtained by millions of Conservative voters supporting Leave against the Prime Minister)?
Leave was never a Conservative argument.
Conservatives voted Remain.
"Had Johnson or Gove taken over after Cameron with a clearly articulated vision of what leaving the EU was about"
And therein lies the problem
There was no cohesive vision. Even today nobody can articulate cohesive vision for something so fundamentally stupid.
Watch the presser with the 2 of them the day after the vote. As was captioned at the time you can almost hear them thinking to each other "You take back control. No, you take it!. YOU TOUCHED IT LAST!"
Neither of them wanted to actually win. Both of them knew it was fucking stupid but wanted short term tactical advantage. In BoZo's case it won him the premiership (eventually) and he completely fucked it up.
@Fishing The NBER paper is hardly the only academic work on the impacts of Brexit. If you actually care about digging into the consensus on this issue then the economic literature on the topic is a JSTOR search away.
The NBER 8% claim is perhaps at the higher end of the estimates of Brexit’s impact on the UK economy but the consensus seems to be that (sadly) the negative impact is real & sustained and the promised sunlit uplands of Brexit have not materialised.
The only things which were semi promised were:
Control migration from the EU Spend more money on the NHS Take back control
All have been achieved.
Now if anyone expected a 'land of milk and honey' they were fooling themselves.
That said, different demographics have experienced different economic conditions this decade.
For example its been relatively far more advantageous for young, northern working class than it has been for southern graduates.
Though that has less to do with brexit than more general socioeconomic trends.
If you landed from another planet with no preconceptions about earthly politics and were put in charge of improving life in the UK, would you conclude that we needed first to join the EU, or would that look like an irrelevant distraction?
As for whether we should seek to join (or rejoin) the EU, short answer, no.
Apart from the unnecessary waste of time, effort and bickering, we can be pretty certain the EU won't offer us status quo ante referendum - were we to seek to join now, it would be a more integrationist offering (probably with a period of associate membership to prepare us for Euro day).
That's how it see it today - in 20 years, who knows? I did once have a dream (never eat the green stuff at the back of the fridge) of listening to a Conservative Prime Minister pledging to take us back into the EU. Impossible? If you'd said in 1975 a Conservative would lead us out of the EEC noone would have believed you - Thatcher was one of the most enthusiastic proponents of our membership - the Tories were the Europeans, Labour were the Euro-sceptics.
Nothing is forever - if one day it becomes overwhelmingly and indisputably obvious rejoining the EU would be in our national economic interest, I'd expect the Government of the day (whatever its composition) to move forward on that basis. That day isn't today or even tomorrow but to rule it out in perpetuity seems absurd.
From the outside, yes, we can wish the EU well and want it to prosper (if they are doing well, we'll likely get some benefit) and we do need to construct a working economic relationship of some kind but for now and for the moment, there are too many other political and social obstacles for us to be able to rejoin.
I have come to the conclusion that we should rejoin.
It's taken me a while to get to that point - I've very much been on a journey and my general thinking has been that the price that would be demanded as a condition to lock the UK back into the EU probably makes it unpalatable to the majority - but I think this is by now by far our best option in an uncertain world.
I didn't support Brexit in the referendum (though I did appreciate some of the arguments on the leave side), but I did believe that the referendum result should be honoured and I disliked the political game-playing that followed. But I think the world has changed so much since 2016 and our politicians have all failed to grasp any potential opportunities that may have arisen (the only real benefit would have been to go bold and undercut in many areas, which is of itself a high risk strategy), to the point where it looks like we are now going to remain peripherally aligned but with no real influence on direction - the worst of all worlds that most of us wanted to avoid.
At the same time we are increasingly learning that we cannot expect our interests to align with the US (even if Trump is gone in 2028 there is little doubt that his politics will still pervade at the top levels of leadership for some time, even if the GOP lose power at the federal level in the immediate term).
Europe now needs to seriously start thinking about its security (economic, energy, border etc) and its place in the world. There is a huge opportunity for it to present itself as a stable bulwark and a safe place to do business. There is a lot that the UK can bring to the table in that discussion - I am not saying we hold "all the cards" but we do bring with us clear strengths in finance, skills, language, defence and security etc. The EU needs to reform, but we should play a role and part in that, not as an observer.
And finally, from a pure electoral standpoint, a rejoin referendum is surely the rabbit out of the hat that Labour need? It's the one weapon in their arsenal that could change the game, the one thing that enables them to present a clear differentiator and choice at the next GE and bring back wavering voters. It's radical, it will upset some people, but given where they sit in the polls surely it makes increasing sense.
It also hands the red wall swing seats Labour won in 2024 on a plate to Farage and some more middle class Leave seats back to the Tories
Those seats are currently "gone" in any event. It is for those who support rejoin to make the case to those areas - have they benefitted from Brexit currently?
I would guess that the majority of people in those areas have been persuaded that it is the Boriswave and small boats that are now the reason for their discontent with the status quo.
I think it's fair to say that immigration has been a more prominent and emotive topic in political discourse than Brexit for the last few years, which is a measure of how Rejoiners have failed to win control of the political debate to build a consensus in favour of Rejoin.
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
At least they got there in the end.
Governments of both colours should have done this some years ago.
I’m not a fan of government picking winners at anything, but when you have a technology where it’s going to end up being the British vs the Chinese, vs possibly the Americans if they get their act together, it makes sense to at least ensure the British technology is developed to production.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
I agree with your first point but disagree with your second .
Democracy isn’t set at just one point in time . If the people vote in a future referendum that they want to rejoin then that’s democracy . It would have to be though with a supermajority which should have been the case in 2016.
Hugely significant decisions should not be made on simple majorities where refs can be at the whims of voters who want to punish the government and ignore the collateral damage of their vote .
What I never understood was, having won the Referendum, why the Conservative Party chose, as its leader to succeed Cameron, someone who had backed (albeit quietly) the Remain side.
It was as though the Leavers in the party, having won the electoral argument, decided to metaphorically disembowel themselves and leave the field to May and her campaign manager, Gavin Williamson, who seemed like some kind of political genius such was the depth of the rabbit hole into which the party had descended.
Who did the Leavers put up - Andrea Leadsom, once Gove and Johnson had shot themselves in the foot and stabbed each other in the back at the same time?
Had Johnson or Gove taken over after Cameron with a clearly articulated vision of what leaving the EU was about, it might have been easier to manage a Commons where there was no majority to leave the EU or force an election to win a clear mandate to leave - would a Johnson or Gove led Party have done better than May did in an alternative 2017 election?
Hard to see how they wouldn't.
Why wouldn't or couldn't the Conservative Leavers take the victory they had obtained (which had been obtained by millions of Conservative voters supporting Leave against the Prime Minister)?
Various reasons.
One was that they didn't like/trust each other. The Conservative Party has always been happy to accelerate the survival of the fittest by making sure that there are a decent number of vipers in the nest. The Johnson years were extreme, but not that extreme in that regard.
Another was that they didn't really have a clear vision of what leaving the EU was about- certainly not one that included "it will mean we lose X but that will be worth it because of Y". It's why the "holding all the cards" rhetoric was so important, because of the implication that there wouldn't need to be any trade-offs.
And ultimately, because any specific concrete Brexit is lkely to be unpopular, because everyone's list of what they wanted to gain from Brexit and what they were prepared to give up to achieve that was different.
But yes- the exploding clown car race that was the 2016 leadership election ought to have been a massive red flag that the subsequent years were unlikely to go well.
These academic studies on Brexit have never been about following the evidence, they start with a conclusion and then fit the data to match it. The liberal elites are still seething about the lumpen proletariat dragging them out of their beloved EU so what does it matter that they put out bullshit studies based on nonsense?
Their agenda is much more important to them and they don't need to worry about scrutiny because the liberal elites in the media will repeat anything they see that will further the agenda.
Indeed.
I wonder if these 'academics' will receive the mockery that Matt Goodwin has.
Its almost comical that their 'evidence' that the UK would have done better in the EU is based on comparing the UK with a country not in the EU.
Have these academics written a book full of errors using ChatGPT? Have they bombed in a by-election campaign? If not, then, no, I don’t think they’ll receive the same mockery that Goodwin has.
It would be brave to contend, in contrast to almost every serious economist, that putting up barriers to trade and investment has not resulted in the UK being materially poorer because of Brexit. If you don't like this study, there are others. But I agree it's tricky to put a number on how much poorer we are because of Brexit.
A couple of potential "flaws" to your list of flaws off the top of my head.
Your list of UK specific factors potentially affecting the economy are mostly from after 2020. UK underperformance kicked in straight after the referendum. Comparator countries have their own country specific factors. In particular Germany with an export dependent economy has been badly hit by an unwinding of globalisation and disruptive changes in automotive markets.
The period 2008 to 2016 that you use as a comparator period includes the worst British recession since WW2. No-one seriously suggests Brexit was worse economically than the GFC. The difference with Brexit was that we voted for the economic damage. It was well into that period before we got back to where we were before. Economic growth going into the referendum was actually quite good.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
I agree with your first point but disagree with your second .
Democracy isn’t set at just one point in time . If the people vote in a future referendum that they want to rejoin then that’s democracy . It would have to be though with a supermajority which should have been the case in 2016.
Hugely significant decisions should not be made on simple majorities where refs can be at the whims of voters who want to punish the government and ignore the collateral damage of their vote .
It's in both party's interests to see Reform and the Greens weaken but at the moment they are caught between the proverbial rock and the metaphorical hard place.
Time wounds all heels, as a cobbler once told me, and the one thing both Labour and the Conservatives have is three years to undermine Farage and Polanski though it's quite possible both will undermine themselves.
Anyone, of course, stupid enough to try and make predictions about 2029 from now deserves all the vitriol they are likely to attract.
Growth of Green and Reform suggests there is a large fluid group of voters whose real preferences won't be known until 2028/2029. Just the flotsam* of political life ebbing and flowing over time until it hits a barrier called a GE.
* Or jetsam depending of how we left the EU.
Green are the Party Labour supporters dream of Labour becoming. By the time of the next election the two parties will have to have reached an accomodation. Sufficient for now to know Farage and his fascists on those numbers haven't got a hope
Interesting article and plenty of good arguments against the 8% in there, so thank you @Fishing.
Your list of bullets under Flaw 1 is however, er... flawed:
1. a once-in-a-century pandemic, 2. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 3. the big increase in the tax-and-spend ratio, 4. the decline of the UK’s two highest productivity industries (financial services and oil and gas), 5. the Liz Truss mini-budget, 6. mistakes and triumphs of macro- and micro-economic policy, etc. etc.,
1. and 2. affected all western economies, so are not relevant to Britain's economic performance relative to Germany, France etc. (Brexit almost certainly encouraged 2. though, Putin seeing the West as divided.)
3. is a consequence of 1 and 2 and similarly affected Germany (UK tax take 2016 / 2026 = 33.7% / 37.0%; Germany 37.6% / 40.5%; France 45.3% / 45.5%)
4. Hard to be sure that the decline of financial services wasn't impacted by Brexit.
5. Without Brexit no Truss PM
6. Affects other economies too.
Ultimately, the butterfly effect probably applies here - we cannot know how things would have proceeded without Brexit.
The external factors such as the pandemic hit all western countries. The internal responses differed but that differentiation was not Brexit related. It was a series of policy decisions by those then in power with substantial economic effects.
The alleged economic benefits of Brexit suffer and suffered from exactly the same flaws as this study. They start with a conclusion or some wishful thinking and then they "prove" that benefit has occurred or will occur. It is gibberish.
Brexit gave us the opportunity to change our economic model somewhat. We could have significantly reduced regulation, we could have changed our tax system to favour investment in ways not permitted within the Single Market, we could have provided greater subsidies or incentives that would have attracted more foreign investment. None of these are no brainers, of course, there would have been a price to pay in terms of trade deals and access to foreign markets. In very recent times we have drawn back to further integration of regulation with the Single Market and looked to reverse the modest changes we had made.
The Treasury has fiercely resisted any such changes because they were anxious about the trade implications. Whether they were right or wrong about that is something else we will never know the answer to. But that policy agenda has further muted the Brexit effect for good or ill. We had opportunities but we did not take them and now seem to have decided that they are not worth taking.
Agree except for the last bit. Our politicians have decided it’s too hard to take decision vs go with the flow. And the institutional bias is towards to path of least resistance. It’s not that the opportunities have been rigorously assessed and decided it’s not worth pursuing.
It requires hard work, attention to detail, proper planning and continuous determination to successfully change a government strategy.
@Fishing The NBER paper is hardly the only academic work on the impacts of Brexit. If you actually care about digging into the consensus on this issue then the economic literature on the topic is a JSTOR search away.
The NBER 8% claim is perhaps at the higher end of the estimates of Brexit’s impact on the UK economy but the consensus seems to be that (sadly) the negative impact is real & sustained and the promised sunlit uplands of Brexit have not materialised.
The only things which were semi promised were:
Control migration from the EU Spend more money on the NHS Take back control
All have been achieved.
Now if anyone expected a 'land of milk and honey' they were fooling themselves.
That said, different demographics have experienced different economic conditions this decade.
For example its been relatively far more advantageous for young, northern working class than it has been for southern graduates.
Though that has less to do with brexit than more general socioeconomic trends.
The genius / great good fortune of the Brexit campaign was that it was able to promise all things to all people whilst the Remain campaign was stuck arguing for the status quo which nobody was happy with.
In particular, many pro-Brexit voices promised the “sunlit uplands“ that trade outside the EU that had previously been blocked would bring the UK. These “sunlit uplands“ were illusory, as post-Brexit Britain has so amply demonstrated.
But we’ve been over all this before on PB many times!
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
I agree with your first point but disagree with your second .
Democracy isn’t set at just one point in time . If the people vote in a future referendum that they want to rejoin then that’s democracy . It would have to be though with a supermajority which should have been the case in 2016.
Hugely significant decisions should not be made on simple majorities where refs can be at the whims of voters who want to punish the government and ignore the collateral damage of their vote .
Or no majority as in 1973.
That’s fair enough . There should have been a ref then not 2 years later .
Swalwell to quit the House after prosecutors in Manhattan open an investigation into the sexual assault/rape allegations against him.
Not clear yet what the implications are for the California governor primary, as he will still be on the ballot despite withdrawing, but it seems likely that it will consolidate Democratic support around one of the other two leading candidates and is probably therefore bad news for the Republicans hoping to take the top two spots.
Gonzales, in Texas (Republican) also to quit the House for much the same reason.
Honestly, what is it with US politicians?
Long term entrenched two party system, with large numbers of safe seats in both houses of Congress creates a lot of politicians with power who will never face any real challenge. That attracts people who abuse power.
The Democrats at least now seem prepared to do some serious cleanup - though this case seems to have shared the toxic dynamic of a lot of people being aware for quite some time that there was a problem (though without irrefutable evidence), and brushing it under the carpet.
The talk is that it was leaked by his opponent Katie Porter (who appears to have some issues of here own).
On a larger scale, I think there is probably enormous political scope for a reformer outside of the Democratic establishment to be their nominee in 2028. That is, ironically, the dynamic that brought Trump to power - or Carney in Canada, or Meloni in Italy, to take slightly more positive examples.
Growth of Green and Reform suggests there is a large fluid group of voters whose real preferences won't be known until 2028/2029. Just the flotsam* of political life ebbing and flowing over time until it hits a barrier called a GE.
* Or jetsam depending of how we left the EU.
I still think these voters are just saying they want change, not of any particular variety
That would imply a substantial willingness of Reform voters to vote Green (e.g. for tactical reasons) and vice versa. Intuitively (I'm not sure this has been measured by polling) that sounds wrong. IMO they want different change - Green voters want more idealism and equality, Reform voters simply want to Put Britain First. never mind the details.
What I never understood was, having won the Referendum, why the Conservative Party chose, as its leader to succeed Cameron, someone who had backed (albeit quietly) the Remain side.
It was as though the Leavers in the party, having won the electoral argument, decided to metaphorically disembowel themselves and leave the field to May and her campaign manager, Gavin Williamson, who seemed like some kind of political genius such was the depth of the rabbit hole into which the party had descended.
Who did the Leavers put up - Andrea Leadsom, once Gove and Johnson had shot themselves in the foot and stabbed each other in the back at the same time?
Had Johnson or Gove taken over after Cameron with a clearly articulated vision of what leaving the EU was about, it might have been easier to manage a Commons where there was no majority to leave the EU or force an election to win a clear mandate to leave - would a Johnson or Gove led Party have done better than May did in an alternative 2017 election?
Hard to see how they wouldn't.
Why wouldn't or couldn't the Conservative Leavers take the victory they had obtained (which had been obtained by millions of Conservative voters supporting Leave against the Prime Minister)?
Leave was never a Conservative argument.
Conservatives voted Remain.
"Had Johnson or Gove taken over after Cameron with a clearly articulated vision of what leaving the EU was about"
And therein lies the problem
There was no cohesive vision. Even today nobody can articulate cohesive vision for something so fundamentally stupid.
Watch the presser with the 2 of them the day after the vote. As was captioned at the time you can almost hear them thinking to each other "You take back control. No, you take it!. YOU TOUCHED IT LAST!"
Neither of them wanted to actually win. Both of them knew it was fucking stupid but wanted short term tactical advantage. In BoZo's case it won him the premiership (eventually) and he completely fucked it up.
Congratulations...
I think you're taking the wrong lesson from that moment.
Exercising political responsibility across the full spectrum is a serious business for serious people. Maybe Gove and Johnson weren't those people, but that doesn't mean that it's "fucking stupid" for ultimate responsibility to reside here instead of palming off various things to an international body.
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
At least they got there in the end.
Governments of both colours should have done this some years ago.
I’m not a fan of government picking winners at anything, but when you have a technology where it’s going to end up being the British vs the Chinese, vs possibly the Americans if they get their act together, it makes sense to at least ensure the British technology is developed to production.
The contract will require Rolls-Royce SMR to work with GBE-N to deliver against key milestones as it commences site-specific design, regulatory engagement, and planning processes, ahead of a future Final Investment Decision.
So, alas, it does not seem as though construction will even begin yet. There doesn't seem to be any detail on what the timetable for the Final Investment Decision is.
Chris Cholerton, Chief Executive of Rolls-Royce SMR, said:
“This contract unlocks the delivery of our first three units and brings certainty to the UK SMR programme. With plans for up to six further units in Czechia, this announcement makes Rolls-Royce SMR the only company with multiple commitments in Europe."
On the face of it, the Czech Republic is making a greater commitment to Rolls-Royce SMR technology than the UK.
I have come to the conclusion that we should rejoin.
It's taken me a while to get to that point - I've very much been on a journey and my general thinking has been that the price that would be demanded as a condition to lock the UK back into the EU probably makes it unpalatable to the majority - but I think this is by now by far our best option in an uncertain world.
I didn't support Brexit in the referendum (though I did appreciate some of the arguments on the leave side), but I did believe that the referendum result should be honoured and I disliked the political game-playing that followed. But I think the world has changed so much since 2016 and our politicians have all failed to grasp any potential opportunities that may have arisen (the only real benefit would have been to go bold and undercut in many areas, which is of itself a high risk strategy), to the point where it looks like we are now going to remain peripherally aligned but with no real influence on direction - the worst of all worlds that most of us wanted to avoid.
At the same time we are increasingly learning that we cannot expect our interests to align with the US (even if Trump is gone in 2028 there is little doubt that his politics will still pervade at the top levels of leadership for some time, even if the GOP lose power at the federal level in the immediate term).
Europe now needs to seriously start thinking about its security (economic, energy, border etc) and its place in the world. There is a huge opportunity for it to present itself as a stable bulwark and a safe place to do business. There is a lot that the UK can bring to the table in that discussion - I am not saying we hold "all the cards" but we do bring with us clear strengths in finance, skills, language, defence and security etc. The EU needs to reform, but we should play a role and part in that, not as an observer.
And finally, from a pure electoral standpoint, a rejoin referendum is surely the rabbit out of the hat that Labour need? It's the one weapon in their arsenal that could change the game, the one thing that enables them to present a clear differentiator and choice at the next GE and bring back wavering voters. It's radical, it will upset some people, but given where they sit in the polls surely it makes increasing sense.
Fairly much agree with all of this. But in fact there is a problem we can't, SFAICS, overcome, evidenced by the fact that putting it crudely, when we are in the EU we want to be out and when we are out we want to be in. And in reality the crunch point is freedom of movement and the way it works. An obvious benefit to the young, globalised and better off, a disbenefit to the not-young, the insular and the less well off.
This should have been sorted by brakes, limitation, discretion etc well before 2016. If it had, none of this farrago would have occurred.
I have come to the conclusion that we should rejoin.
It's taken me a while to get to that point - I've very much been on a journey and my general thinking has been that the price that would be demanded as a condition to lock the UK back into the EU probably makes it unpalatable to the majority - but I think this is by now by far our best option in an uncertain world.
I didn't support Brexit in the referendum (though I did appreciate some of the arguments on the leave side), but I did believe that the referendum result should be honoured and I disliked the political game-playing that followed. But I think the world has changed so much since 2016 and our politicians have all failed to grasp any potential opportunities that may have arisen (the only real benefit would have been to go bold and undercut in many areas, which is of itself a high risk strategy), to the point where it looks like we are now going to remain peripherally aligned but with no real influence on direction - the worst of all worlds that most of us wanted to avoid.
At the same time we are increasingly learning that we cannot expect our interests to align with the US (even if Trump is gone in 2028 there is little doubt that his politics will still pervade at the top levels of leadership for some time, even if the GOP lose power at the federal level in the immediate term).
Europe now needs to seriously start thinking about its security (economic, energy, border etc) and its place in the world. There is a huge opportunity for it to present itself as a stable bulwark and a safe place to do business. There is a lot that the UK can bring to the table in that discussion - I am not saying we hold "all the cards" but we do bring with us clear strengths in finance, skills, language, defence and security etc. The EU needs to reform, but we should play a role and part in that, not as an observer.
And finally, from a pure electoral standpoint, a rejoin referendum is surely the rabbit out of the hat that Labour need? It's the one weapon in their arsenal that could change the game, the one thing that enables them to present a clear differentiator and choice at the next GE and bring back wavering voters. It's radical, it will upset some people, but given where they sit in the polls surely it makes increasing sense.
It also hands the red wall swing seats Labour won in 2024 on a plate to Farage and some more middle class Leave seats back to the Tories
Those seats are currently "gone" in any event. It is for those who support rejoin to make the case to those areas - have they benefitted from Brexit currently?
In terms of the reduction in EU immigration and now net migration overall they got what they voted for. Even if only 52% voted Leave, 2/3 of constituencies voted Leave as Remain piled up votes in inner cities and university towns.
So unless a clear 60 to 70% for rejoin the EU in polls it will just hit Labour in swing seats
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
Swalwell to quit the House after prosecutors in Manhattan open an investigation into the sexual assault/rape allegations against him.
Not clear yet what the implications are for the California governor primary, as he will still be on the ballot despite withdrawing, but it seems likely that it will consolidate Democratic support around one of the other two leading candidates and is probably therefore bad news for the Republicans hoping to take the top two spots.
Gonzales, in Texas (Republican) also to quit the House for much the same reason.
Honestly, what is it with US politicians?
There’s suggestion that a total of SIX Reps might resign this week, three Rs and three Ds.
A concerted effort is underway by a bipartisan group of women Reps, to force especially sexual allegations out into the open. It was recently discovered that $17m has been paid out of public funds in settlements to sexual accusers, and the men in Congress voted to keep the details secret.
The California governor primary was of course the whole reason for the Swalwell allegations coming out this weekend, when it appears that his being a scumbag with women has been well-known among the Washington and Sacramento political and media classes for a decade or more. One has to admire the ability of the Democratic party to so ruthlessly cast aside one of their own when he’s no longer useful to them, and risked handing one of the most coveted positions in US politics to the Republicans. There’s now a better chance of both parties advancing out of the “jungle” primary in June, instead of the two Republicans.
Hmmm. If they had been that ruthless they would have shoved Biden aside six months earlier and had a contested primary. In which case we would almost certainly not have the orange haired pedo and war criminal in power now.
Unless they've learned from this experience?
I also believe that if Harris had had a decent run of being President she would have won. It would have given her the advantages of incumbency and the ability to clearly set out her agenda. Jill Biden's reluctance to allow her husband to step aside has cost the whole world very dear.
Rubbish, Harris was hopeless, the worst candidate the Democrats have run since Dukakis. She not only lost the electoral college but unlike Hillary even managed to lose the popular vote to Trump
Biden let us not forget actually beat Trump in 2020, he knew Harris would hand the election to Trump on a plate and he was right, hence his reluctance to let her run
Which incumbant elected governments worldwide did well in seeking re-election 2023-25? Harris did better than most in retaining support. She wasn't ideal but the idea she was terrible is not supported by the evidence.
She was terrible, she lost virtually every swing state and the popular vote to Trump. The Australian and Canadian governments were elected last year, the Spanish government was re elected, the Indian government won most seats in that time period
You're not getting away with this kind of nonsense.
In both Australia and Canada (Spain too if you want), the centre-right Opposition parties enjoyed substantial leads up to the point Trump became President again in January 2025. The Australian coalition was polling 40% - ten points in front of Labor - in early 2025 yet contrived by May to turn it into the worst result since 1943.
Poilievre's Conservatives were well ahead in Canada but managed to lose.
Trump's immediate policy pronouncements drove voters in other countries away from any party which showed even the slightest support - when Trump started going on about invading Canada, Poilievre saw his support collapse.
This was nothing to do with global economics but simply anti-Trump sentiment in countries who saw a new and more adversarial relationship developing with Washington and centre-right politicians who had been so busy attacking Harris and the American Democrats and celebrating their defeat now had to deal with the reality.
Even in Denmark recently, the centre-right Venstre lost ground and it seems likely a new centre-left Government will take over.
You will argue (and rightly) the only centre-right politician who has successfully articulated an anti-Trump position is Meloni in Italy but while her FdL party continues to poll strongly, her coalition partners aren't doing so well and it's far from clear whether she will survive at the 2027 election or whether she too will be replaced by a centre-left coalition led by the Democratic Party.
I have come to the conclusion that we should rejoin.
It's taken me a while to get to that point - I've very much been on a journey and my general thinking has been that the price that would be demanded as a condition to lock the UK back into the EU probably makes it unpalatable to the majority - but I think this is by now by far our best option in an uncertain world.
I didn't support Brexit in the referendum (though I did appreciate some of the arguments on the leave side), but I did believe that the referendum result should be honoured and I disliked the political game-playing that followed. But I think the world has changed so much since 2016 and our politicians have all failed to grasp any potential opportunities that may have arisen (the only real benefit would have been to go bold and undercut in many areas, which is of itself a high risk strategy), to the point where it looks like we are now going to remain peripherally aligned but with no real influence on direction - the worst of all worlds that most of us wanted to avoid.
At the same time we are increasingly learning that we cannot expect our interests to align with the US (even if Trump is gone in 2028 there is little doubt that his politics will still pervade at the top levels of leadership for some time, even if the GOP lose power at the federal level in the immediate term).
Europe now needs to seriously start thinking about its security (economic, energy, border etc) and its place in the world. There is a huge opportunity for it to present itself as a stable bulwark and a safe place to do business. There is a lot that the UK can bring to the table in that discussion - I am not saying we hold "all the cards" but we do bring with us clear strengths in finance, skills, language, defence and security etc. The EU needs to reform, but we should play a role and part in that, not as an observer.
And finally, from a pure electoral standpoint, a rejoin referendum is surely the rabbit out of the hat that Labour need? It's the one weapon in their arsenal that could change the game, the one thing that enables them to present a clear differentiator and choice at the next GE and bring back wavering voters. It's radical, it will upset some people, but given where they sit in the polls surely it makes increasing sense.
Labour will not become a party of Rejoin, at least not until the mid-2030's. There are just too many horrible questions to which they have to provide answers. Answers that will scare off one tranche of voters or another.
Rejoin will be the Ming vase strategy for next time. Say nothing that matters. Because it worked so well last time.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
I agree with your first point but disagree with your second .
Democracy isn’t set at just one point in time . If the people vote in a future referendum that they want to rejoin then that’s democracy . It would have to be though with a supermajority which should have been the case in 2016.
I disagree with that. If we'd set the threshold in 2016 at 60% or 66% rather than 50%, we'd have been stuck with membership in a body which determined 50-85% of our laws without any democratic legitimacy. That would be hugely dangerous to democracy in this country.
I think 50% is the only threshold that makes any sense (and for that matter, that's why it's by far the most common threshold in referenda around the world).
@Fishing The NBER paper is hardly the only academic work on the impacts of Brexit. If you actually care about digging into the consensus on this issue then the economic literature on the topic is a JSTOR search away.
The NBER 8% claim is perhaps at the higher end of the estimates of Brexit’s impact on the UK economy but the consensus seems to be that (sadly) the negative impact is real & sustained and the promised sunlit uplands of Brexit have not materialised.
The only things which were semi promised were:
Control migration from the EU Spend more money on the NHS Take back control
All have been achieved.
Now if anyone expected a 'land of milk and honey' they were fooling themselves.
That said, different demographics have experienced different economic conditions this decade.
For example its been relatively far more advantageous for young, northern working class than it has been for southern graduates.
Though that has less to do with brexit than more general socioeconomic trends.
The genius / great good fortune of the Brexit campaign was that it was able to promise all things to all people whilst the Remain campaign was stuck arguing for the status quo which nobody was happy with.
In particular, many pro-Brexit voices promised the “sunlit uplands“ that trade outside the EU that had previously been blocked would bring the UK. These “sunlit uplands“ were illusory, as post-Brexit Britain has so amply demonstrated.
But we’ve been over all this before on PB many times!
I think that a substantial minority were quite happy (or at least content) with the status quo wrt the EU pre-2016, but Yes it's tedious.
The UK will transition back into EU alignment, having never exited, it will be less than pre-2016 and there'll be occasional anti-EU outbursts.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
I agree with your first point but disagree with your second .
Democracy isn’t set at just one point in time . If the people vote in a future referendum that they want to rejoin then that’s democracy . It would have to be though with a supermajority which should have been the case in 2016.
Hugely significant decisions should not be made on simple majorities where refs can be at the whims of voters who want to punish the government and ignore the collateral damage of their vote .
Or no majority as in 1973.
That’s fair enough . There should have been a ref then not 2 years later .
I'd also say there should have then been votes all along the way including expansions. Remain would have been in a much healthier position if they could have said "well you voted for it" (of course, the danger is that the public might not have voted for it).
It would be brave to contend, in contrast to almost every serious economist, that putting up barriers to trade and investment has not resulted in the UK being materially poorer because of Brexit. If you don't like this study, there are others. But I agree it's tricky to put a number on how much poorer we are because of Brexit.
A couple of potential "flaws" to your list of flaws off the top my head.
Your list of UK specific factors that might affect the economy are mostly after 2020. UK underperformance kicked in straight after the referendum. Also comparator countries have their own country specific factors. In particular Germany with an export dependent economy has been badly hit by an unwinding of globalisation and disruptive changes in automotive markets.
The period 2008 to 2016 that you use as a comparator period includes the worst British recession since WW2. No-one seriously suggests Brexit was worse economically than the GFC. The difference with Brexit was that we voted for the economic damage. It was well into that period before we got back to where we were before. Economic growth going into the referendum was actually quite good.
UK underperformance kicked in straight after the referendum.
Germany with an export dependent economy has been badly hit by an unwinding of globalisation and disruptive changes in automotive markets.
Maybe so but isn't that an argument that the EU will continue to struggle economically if its strongest nation is no longer suited for the modern world ?
Swalwell to quit the House after prosecutors in Manhattan open an investigation into the sexual assault/rape allegations against him.
Not clear yet what the implications are for the California governor primary, as he will still be on the ballot despite withdrawing, but it seems likely that it will consolidate Democratic support around one of the other two leading candidates and is probably therefore bad news for the Republicans hoping to take the top two spots.
Gonzales, in Texas (Republican) also to quit the House for much the same reason.
Honestly, what is it with US politicians?
Quite apart from the ethics of it, how do they find the time for sexual impropriety? As an MP with a far smaller constituency than any Congressman, I never felt there were enough hours in the day to stay in touch with voters as much as I'd have liked and stay married to one person, let alone look around for someone else.
that doesn't mean that it's "fucking stupid" for ultimate responsibility to reside here instead of palming off various things to an international body.
Since we live in a Global economy and ultimate responsibility for many, many things lies with international bodies, pretending we could "go it alone" is the fucking stupid part. We gave up our seat at the table where decisions that affect us are made. That was fucking stupid, and will always be so.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
I agree with your first point but disagree with your second .
Democracy isn’t set at just one point in time . If the people vote in a future referendum that they want to rejoin then that’s democracy . It would have to be though with a supermajority which should have been the case in 2016.
Hugely significant decisions should not be made on simple majorities where refs can be at the whims of voters who want to punish the government and ignore the collateral damage of their vote .
Or no majority as in 1973.
That’s fair enough . There should have been a ref then not 2 years later .
I'd also say there should have then been votes all along the way including expansions. Remain would have been in a much healthier position if they could have said "well you voted for it" (of course, the danger is that the public might not have voted for it).
Yes, the starting point for turning a fringe movement into what became Brexit, was the lack of UK referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and the way the EU went about passing their definitely-not-a-constitution over the heads of the people in other EU countries.
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
I am increasingly of the opinion that Labour are the only real choice available if you care about the economic future of the UK, despite their manifest and obvious flaws.
What are the other options? The Greens with their completely off-the wall economics? The never-build-anything-anywhere LibDems? A Conservative party that still hasn’t even begun to understand how & why it presided over 17 years of economic stagnation? Reform, who so far appear to embody nothing but corruption & incompetence the moment they get into power anywhere?
At least Labour are trying to grapple with what ails this country. They may fail in the attempt but to me it seems as if they are the only party that is acting with any kind of realism.
We get the politicians we deserve as an electorate in my opinion.
(I reserve the right to change my opinion as & when policy platforms change & new voices come to the fore! I have hope for the LibDems, but very little for Green/Con/Reform sadly.)
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
I agree with your first point but disagree with your second .
Democracy isn’t set at just one point in time . If the people vote in a future referendum that they want to rejoin then that’s democracy . It would have to be though with a supermajority which should have been the case in 2016.
I disagree with that. If we'd set the threshold in 2016 at 60% or 66% rather than 50%, we'd have been stuck with membership in a body which determined 50-85% of our laws without any democratic legitimacy. That would be hugely dangerous to democracy in this country.
I think 50% is the only threshold that makes any sense (and for that matter, that's why it's by far the most common threshold in referenda around the world).
That is the downside of supermajorities, for all it seems fair to say that a big change needs more than 50% + 1 vote support. There's a similar issue in the Church of England with all the gay stuff. Those wanting a more liberal approach can typically win somewhere between fifty percent and sixty six percent backing. So the issue continues to foul up the conversation.
Swalwell to quit the House after prosecutors in Manhattan open an investigation into the sexual assault/rape allegations against him.
Not clear yet what the implications are for the California governor primary, as he will still be on the ballot despite withdrawing, but it seems likely that it will consolidate Democratic support around one of the other two leading candidates and is probably therefore bad news for the Republicans hoping to take the top two spots.
Gonzales, in Texas (Republican) also to quit the House for much the same reason.
Honestly, what is it with US politicians?
Quite apart from the ethics of it, how do they find the time for sexual impropriety? As an MP with a far smaller constituency than any Congressman, I never felt there were enough hours in the day to stay in touch with voters as much as I'd have liked and stay married to one person, let alone look around for someone else.
That may be one reason why it's mostly their staff they are assaulting.
Swalwell to quit the House after prosecutors in Manhattan open an investigation into the sexual assault/rape allegations against him.
Not clear yet what the implications are for the California governor primary, as he will still be on the ballot despite withdrawing, but it seems likely that it will consolidate Democratic support around one of the other two leading candidates and is probably therefore bad news for the Republicans hoping to take the top two spots.
Gonzales, in Texas (Republican) also to quit the House for much the same reason.
Honestly, what is it with US politicians?
There’s suggestion that a total of SIX Reps might resign this week, three Rs and three Ds.
A concerted effort is underway by a bipartisan group of women Reps, to force especially sexual allegations out into the open. It was recently discovered that $17m has been paid out of public funds in settlements to sexual accusers, and the men in Congress voted to keep the details secret.
The California governor primary was of course the whole reason for the Swalwell allegations coming out this weekend, when it appears that his being a scumbag with women has been well-known among the Washington and Sacramento political and media classes for a decade or more. One has to admire the ability of the Democratic party to so ruthlessly cast aside one of their own when he’s no longer useful to them, and risked handing one of the most coveted positions in US politics to the Republicans. There’s now a better chance of both parties advancing out of the “jungle” primary in June, instead of the two Republicans.
Hmmm. If they had been that ruthless they would have shoved Biden aside six months earlier and had a contested primary. In which case we would almost certainly not have the orange haired pedo and war criminal in power now.
Unless they've learned from this experience?
I also believe that if Harris had had a decent run of being President she would have won. It would have given her the advantages of incumbency and the ability to clearly set out her agenda. Jill Biden's reluctance to allow her husband to step aside has cost the whole world very dear.
Rubbish, Harris was hopeless, the worst candidate the Democrats have run since Dukakis. She not only lost the electoral college but unlike Hillary even managed to lose the popular vote to Trump
Biden let us not forget actually beat Trump in 2020, he knew Harris would hand the election to Trump on a plate and he was right, hence his reluctance to let her run
Which incumbant elected governments worldwide did well in seeking re-election 2023-25? Harris did better than most in retaining support. She wasn't ideal but the idea she was terrible is not supported by the evidence.
She was terrible, she lost virtually every swing state and the popular vote to Trump. The Australian and Canadian governments were elected last year, the Spanish government was re elected, the Indian government won most seats in that time period
You're not getting away with this kind of nonsense.
In both Australia and Canada (Spain too if you want), the centre-right Opposition parties enjoyed substantial leads up to the point Trump became President again in January 2025. The Australian coalition was polling 40% - ten points in front of Labor - in early 2025 yet contrived by May to turn it into the worst result since 1943.
Poilievre's Conservatives were well ahead in Canada but managed to lose.
Trump's immediate policy pronouncements drove voters in other countries away from any party which showed even the slightest support - when Trump started going on about invading Canada, Poilievre saw his support collapse.
This was nothing to do with global economics but simply anti-Trump sentiment in countries who saw a new and more adversarial relationship developing with Washington and centre-right politicians who had been so busy attacking Harris and the American Democrats and celebrating their defeat now had to deal with the reality.
Even in Denmark recently, the centre-right Venstre lost ground and it seems likely a new centre-left Government will take over.
You will argue (and rightly) the only centre-right politician who has successfully articulated an anti-Trump position is Meloni in Italy but while her FdL party continues to poll strongly, her coalition partners aren't doing so well and it's far from clear whether she will survive at the 2027 election or whether she too will be replaced by a centre-left coalition led by the Democratic Party.
Albanese would likely have won without Trump, Poilievre lost but got the highest Conservative voteshare since 1988 and gained seats. It was winning NDP seats that saved Carney.
Harris in 2024 managed to lose lots of Biden 2020 votes and lost every swing state Biden won in 2020
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
At least they got there in the end.
Governments of both colours should have done this some years ago.
I’m not a fan of government picking winners at anything, but when you have a technology where it’s going to end up being the British vs the Chinese, vs possibly the Americans if they get their act together, it makes sense to at least ensure the British technology is developed to production.
The contract will require Rolls-Royce SMR to work with GBE-N to deliver against key milestones as it commences site-specific design, regulatory engagement, and planning processes, ahead of a future Final Investment Decision.
So, alas, it does not seem as though construction will even begin yet. There doesn't seem to be any detail on what the timetable for the Final Investment Decision is.
Chris Cholerton, Chief Executive of Rolls-Royce SMR, said:
“This contract unlocks the delivery of our first three units and brings certainty to the UK SMR programme. With plans for up to six further units in Czechia, this announcement makes Rolls-Royce SMR the only company with multiple commitments in Europe."
On the face of it, the Czech Republic is making a greater commitment to Rolls-Royce SMR technology than the UK.
The trick is to avoid picking winners by backing *development* of multiple technologies.
See DARPA
When I was younger and more stupid, I used to advocate a U.K. DARPA, to various politicians.
They all wanted to “improve” the model, by picking a technology and making it a Big Project.
In this case, I would back at least 4, preferably 6 technologies. The requirements would be power generation, zero carbon etc.
So tidal ponds, SMRs etc.
Then measure actual results. And back the winners selected by reality, not a committee.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
Ukraine joining the EU still has to get past the new guy in Hungary.
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
I am increasingly of the opinion that Labour are the only real choice available if you care about the economic future of the UK, despite their manifest and obvious flaws.
What are the other options? The Greens with their completely off-the wall economics? The never-build-anything-anywhere LibDems? A Conservative party that still hasn’t even begun to understand how & why it presided over 17 years of economic stagnation? Reform, who so far appear to embody nothing but corruption & incompetence the moment they get into power anywhere?
At least Labour are trying to grapple with what ails this country. They may fail in the attempt but to me it seems as if they are the only party that is acting with any kind of realism.
We get the politicians we deserve as an electorate in my opinion.
(I reserve the right to change my opinion as & when policy platforms change & new voices come to the fore! I have hope for the LibDems, but very little for Green/Con/Reform sadly.)
I have been very disappointed in Labour.
The question I am trying to answer is whether they are moving things in the right direction (albeit much more slowly than I would hope) or if they are unwilling to tackle the big problems that exist, and so nothing fundamentally is going to change while they are in government?
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
I agree with your first point but disagree with your second .
Democracy isn’t set at just one point in time . If the people vote in a future referendum that they want to rejoin then that’s democracy . It would have to be though with a supermajority which should have been the case in 2016.
I disagree with that. If we'd set the threshold in 2016 at 60% or 66% rather than 50%, we'd have been stuck with membership in a body which determined 50-85% of our laws without any democratic legitimacy. That would be hugely dangerous to democracy in this country.
I think 50% is the only threshold that makes any sense (and for that matter, that's why it's by far the most common threshold in referenda around the world).
Swalwell to quit the House after prosecutors in Manhattan open an investigation into the sexual assault/rape allegations against him.
Not clear yet what the implications are for the California governor primary, as he will still be on the ballot despite withdrawing, but it seems likely that it will consolidate Democratic support around one of the other two leading candidates and is probably therefore bad news for the Republicans hoping to take the top two spots.
Gonzales, in Texas (Republican) also to quit the House for much the same reason.
Honestly, what is it with US politicians?
Quite apart from the ethics of it, how do they find the time for sexual impropriety? As an MP with a far smaller constituency than any Congressman, I never felt there were enough hours in the day to stay in touch with voters as much as I'd have liked and stay married to one person, let alone look around for someone else.
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
I am increasingly of the opinion that Labour are the only real choice available if you care about the economic future of the UK, despite their manifest and obvious flaws.
What are the other options? The Greens with their completely off-the wall economics? The never-build-anything-anywhere LibDems? A Conservative party that still hasn’t even begun to understand how & why it presided over 17 years of economic stagnation? Reform, who so far appear to embody nothing but corruption & incompetence the moment they get into power anywhere?
At least Labour are trying to grapple with what ails this country. They may fail in the attempt but to me it seems as if they are the only party that is acting with any kind of realism.
We get the politicians we deserve as an electorate in my opinion.
(I reserve the right to change my opinion as & when policy platforms change & new voices come to the fore! I have hope for the LibDems, but very little for Green/Con/Reform sadly.)
At present I can't see how my vote at the next GE could be anything but Labour or Tory, but neither of them offer me everything that I would wish for, nor do I relish the thought of supporting them given how much of a mess they have respectively made of things in recent times.
Can I just say - this must be one of the very few forums where the question of the UK's future role in the EU (if any) can be debated in a civil manner, without somebody resorting to the level of "But your Mum smells of poo...!".
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
Ukraine joining the EU still has to get past the new guy in Hungary.
He is not a fan of the idea.
The EU will offer some sweeteners to Hungary to try and get them on board !
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
Ukraine joining the EU still has to get past the new guy in Hungary.
He is not a fan of the idea.
As I understand it the new guy in Hungary has said that he is opposed to fast-tracking Ukraine's membership, but not that he is outright opposed to it. This may mean that he will allow Ukraine's accession to move to the next stage of negotiations on the various clusters.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
The "EU army" was a scare story pre-Brexit. A decade on, it remains a scare story and nothing more. It's absolutely absurd to say that if we were to rejoin we'd be forced into it.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
Ukraine joining the EU still has to get past the new guy in Hungary.
He is not a fan of the idea.
Not being a fan of the idea is a very different position from being deep in Moscow's pocket as his predecessor was. Merely not being a fan of something suggests there's a deal to be done.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
Ukraine joining the EU still has to get past the new guy in Hungary.
He is not a fan of the idea.
A postwar Ukraine would be a much more attractive prospect for the EU, I think. Magyar (for now) seems to be a pragmatist; I don't get the impression he is categorically opposed to to it.
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
I am increasingly of the opinion that Labour are the only real choice available if you care about the economic future of the UK, despite their manifest and obvious flaws.
What are the other options? The Greens with their completely off-the wall economics? The never-build-anything-anywhere LibDems? A Conservative party that still hasn’t even begun to understand how & why it presided over 17 years of economic stagnation? Reform, who so far appear to embody nothing but corruption & incompetence the moment they get into power anywhere?
At least Labour are trying to grapple with what ails this country. They may fail in the attempt but to me it seems as if they are the only party that is acting with any kind of realism.
We get the politicians we deserve as an electorate in my opinion.
(I reserve the right to change my opinion as & when policy platforms change & new voices come to the fore! I have hope for the LibDems, but very little for Green/Con/Reform sadly.)
I have been very disappointed in Labour.
The question I am trying to answer is whether they are moving things in the right direction (albeit much more slowly than I would hope) or if they are unwilling to tackle the big problems that exist, and so nothing fundamentally is going to change while they are in government?
At the moment I am leaning towards the latter.
Oh, likewise: I could give you a laundry list of bad policies that Labour have entered into. But the question, as ever, is twofold: 1) what are the alternatives? (right now the alternatives seem to me to be worse) and 2) Does the party at least have a chance of moving us in a positive direction? I think for Labour the answer is to (2) is still yes - reasonable people may disagree of course.
Populism is a curse: When you have an electorate that doesn’t want to accept economic reality, you end up with political parties that promise the impossible & will inevitably fail to deliver it whilst thrashing around on the hook of said economic reality.
If you landed from another planet with no preconceptions about earthly politics and were put in charge of improving life in the UK, would you conclude that we needed first to join the EU, or would that look like an irrelevant distraction?
The Martian would take a look around and go, "what's that big place just over the water there?"
"Europe," we'd say. "Our continent."
"Ah ok. So you're nicely aligned with that then, are you? You know, for trade and security and all of that good stuff?"
"Er no. We were but ten years ago we decided we'd be better off on our jack jones."
"And are you?"
"Well it depends who you listen to. The expert consensus is no we're a lot worse off. And indeed that's how it feels to people. It's more or less accepted that we made a mistake leaving."
"Oh dear."
"But hang on, it's not quite unanimous."
"There are holdouts?"
"Yep. A big one. PB's 'Fishing'. He reckons it's nonsense and a few of the diehard Leave posters on there, kind of the last soldiers in the jungle, agree or at least they say they do."
Martian head starts flashing and beeping, emits a metallic manic chuckle, "For Mash Get Smash".
that doesn't mean that it's "fucking stupid" for ultimate responsibility to reside here instead of palming off various things to an international body.
Since we live in a Global economy and ultimate responsibility for many, many things lies with international bodies, pretending we could "go it alone" is the fucking stupid part. We gave up our seat at the table where decisions that affect us are made. That was fucking stupid, and will always be so.
If all the external decisions that affect us were made by the EU then you might have an argument, but they're not. EU members are no more shielded from the impact of the war in Iran than non-members, for example.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
The "EU army" was a scare story pre-Brexit. A decade on, it remains a scare story and nothing more. It's absolutely absurd to say that if we were to rejoin we'd be forced into it.
The two nearest things to an EU army are JEF and the NATO allied rapid reaction corps. Both based in and led by Britain.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
I agree with your first point but disagree with your second .
Democracy isn’t set at just one point in time . If the people vote in a future referendum that they want to rejoin then that’s democracy . It would have to be though with a supermajority which should have been the case in 2016.
Hugely significant decisions should not be made on simple majorities where refs can be at the whims of voters who want to punish the government and ignore the collateral damage of their vote .
Or no majority as in 1973.
That’s fair enough . There should have been a ref then not 2 years later .
I'd also say there should have then been votes all along the way including expansions. Remain would have been in a much healthier position if they could have said "well you voted for it" (of course, the danger is that the public might not have voted for it).
Yes, the starting point for turning a fringe movement into what became Brexit, was the lack of UK referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and the way the EU went about passing their definitely-not-a-constitution over the heads of the people in other EU countries.
That and the huge wave of immigrants from the A10 member states post-2004. The government estimated that 13,000 would come, and at least three or four million turned up.
One day politicians will learn that foisting huge social changes on a country without any democratic debate is completely counter-productive.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
Ukraine joining the EU still has to get past the new guy in Hungary.
He is not a fan of the idea.
I don't think Ukraine is ready to join the EU yet. In the same way Bosnia, Serbia and arguably Montenegro are not.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
The "EU army" was a scare story pre-Brexit. A decade on, it remains a scare story and nothing more. It's absolutely absurd to say that if we were to rejoin we'd be forced into it.
The two nearest things to an EU army are JEF and the NATO allied rapid reaction corps. Both based in and led by Britain.
For how much longer ? If we continue to allow our defence capacity to erode, we risk becoming an irrelevance.
Starmer’s ‘corrosive complacency’ on defence has put UK in peril, says ex-Nato chief George Robertson says Iran war should be wake-up call to address military underfunding in scathing remarks https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/14/starmer-accused-of-corrosive-complacency-about-defence-by-ex-head-of-nato The government has shown a “corrosive complacency towards defence” and put the UK in peril, according to a government adviser, in fierce criticism of Keir Starmer’s military policy.
George Robertson, the former Nato secretary general and author of the government’s strategic defence review, believes Starmer is “not willing to make the necessary investment”, the Financial Times reported.
In addition, Lord Robertson will warn in a lecture in Salisbury on Tuesday that the Iran war “has to be a rude wake-up call”.
The former general Richard Barrons, who co-authored the defence review with Robertson, echoed his concerns. “It is a mark of how serious it is that someone who has been a Labour party activist for more than 60 years and was a Nato secretary general has now had to say it in these terms today,” Barrons told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Robertson, a former defence secretary who led Nato from 1999 to 2003, will also accuse “non-military experts in the Treasury” of “vandalism”. “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget,” he said in an interview with the Financial Times.
He will say in his speech: “We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack. We are not safe … Britain’s national security and safety is in peril.”
Barrons said: “There’s an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe in the world we now live in, and where we actually are.”
Asked how he responded to Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, mocking the Royal Navy last week, Barrons said: “I hung my head in sorrow, but I couldn’t argue with him because although the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and the army are, in their bones, outstanding institutions, they are simply too small and too undernourished to deal with the world that we now live in. And the review says this.”
The government’s proposals to fund the strategic defence review recommendations, including a 10-year defence investment plan due by last autumn, have been repeatedly postponed amid warnings that the military faces a £28bn funding gap over the next four years.
Barrons said: “The choice on the prime minister’s desk is they either find some more money to implement a new de minimis review at the speed we agreed last year, or he is going to announce £28bn worth of cuts. And how would that fit with the world that we find ourselves in today?..
Russia’s oil revenue surges as sanctions relief eases during war on Iran Russia’s revenue from oil exports almost doubled in March after Moscow received sanctions relief aimed at easing surging energy prices during the US-Israel war on Iran, according to the International Energy Agency.
The country earned $19bn last month as crude and oil product exports soared to 7.1 million barrels per day from just 320,000 in February, it said.
The US eased some restrictions on sales of Russian crude imposed over Russia’s war against Ukraine, allowing countries to buy oil that was already at sea until April 11.
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
I am increasingly of the opinion that Labour are the only real choice available if you care about the economic future of the UK, despite their manifest and obvious flaws.
What are the other options? The Greens with their completely off-the wall economics? The never-build-anything-anywhere LibDems? A Conservative party that still hasn’t even begun to understand how & why it presided over 17 years of economic stagnation? Reform, who so far appear to embody nothing but corruption & incompetence the moment they get into power anywhere?
At least Labour are trying to grapple with what ails this country. They may fail in the attempt but to me it seems as if they are the only party that is acting with any kind of realism.
We get the politicians we deserve as an electorate in my opinion.
(I reserve the right to change my opinion as & when policy platforms change & new voices come to the fore! I have hope for the LibDems, but very little for Green/Con/Reform sadly.)
I have been very disappointed in Labour.
The question I am trying to answer is whether they are moving things in the right direction (albeit much more slowly than I would hope) or if they are unwilling to tackle the big problems that exist, and so nothing fundamentally is going to change while they are in government?
At the moment I am leaning towards the latter.
Oh, likewise: I could give you a laundry list of bad policies that Labour have entered into. But the question, as ever, is twofold: 1) what are the alternatives? (right now the alternatives seem to me to be worse) and 2) Does the party at least have a chance of moving us in a positive direction? I think for Labour the answer is to (2) is still yes - reasonable people may disagree of course.
Populism is a curse: When you have an electorate that doesn’t want to accept economic reality, you end up with political parties that promise the impossible & will inevitably fail to deliver it whilst thrashing around on the hook of said economic reality.
I think where I would differ with you is that the first step in solving a problem is acknowledging the scale of the problem. I am not sure that Labour are willing to acknowledge that the scale of the problem is such that it requires reforms beyond Treasury and Blairite orthodoxy.
A vote for the Greens (or Reform, for those whose instincts run to the right) would therefore offer a corrective insofar as it would indicate that the problems are big enough that orthodox tinkering won't fix them.
(My personal vote is complicated by being located in Scotland, where a vote for the Greens is also a vote against the Union [British], so I've actually let my electoral registration lapse, as I'm not sure I can decide which way to vote.)
Russia’s oil revenue surges as sanctions relief eases during war on Iran Russia’s revenue from oil exports almost doubled in March after Moscow received sanctions relief aimed at easing surging energy prices during the US-Israel war on Iran, according to the International Energy Agency.
The country earned $19bn last month as crude and oil product exports soared to 7.1 million barrels per day from just 320,000 in February, it said.
The US eased some restrictions on sales of Russian crude imposed over Russia’s war against Ukraine, allowing countries to buy oil that was already at sea until April 11.
Must be fake News Sandpit says Russia wont benefit and Ukraine won the war every week for the last 4 years
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
At least they got there in the end.
Governments of both colours should have done this some years ago.
I’m not a fan of government picking winners at anything, but when you have a technology where it’s going to end up being the British vs the Chinese, vs possibly the Americans if they get their act together, it makes sense to at least ensure the British technology is developed to production.
The contract will require Rolls-Royce SMR to work with GBE-N to deliver against key milestones as it commences site-specific design, regulatory engagement, and planning processes, ahead of a future Final Investment Decision.
So, alas, it does not seem as though construction will even begin yet. There doesn't seem to be any detail on what the timetable for the Final Investment Decision is.
Chris Cholerton, Chief Executive of Rolls-Royce SMR, said:
“This contract unlocks the delivery of our first three units and brings certainty to the UK SMR programme. With plans for up to six further units in Czechia, this announcement makes Rolls-Royce SMR the only company with multiple commitments in Europe."
On the face of it, the Czech Republic is making a greater commitment to Rolls-Royce SMR technology than the UK.
The trick is to avoid picking winners by backing *development* of multiple technologies.
See DARPA
When I was younger and more stupid, I used to advocate a U.K. DARPA, to various politicians.
They all wanted to “improve” the model, by picking a technology and making it a Big Project.
In this case, I would back at least 4, preferably 6 technologies. The requirements would be power generation, zero carbon etc.
So tidal ponds, SMRs etc.
Then measure actual results. And back the winners selected by reality, not a committee.
Large companies often make the same mistake as governments and rely on a few individuals picking winners.
In the 1980s. when I worked in ICI HQ, the Board picked two winners for special attention and cash. From memory, it was PVC and Pruteen. It wasn't pharmaceuticals which actually proved to be the big winner but it didn't save ICI.
Mark Zuckerberg bet billions on the metaverse being the next big thing, and has just pulled the plug on it.
As you say, far better to have a portfolio of technology pilots and see which ones succeed in the real world.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
The EU as an organisation seems to have given about 0.6-0.7% which is approximately what the USA and UK ** have given.
Whereas some countries have given up to five times as much.
The relevant question is how much of that EU aid would have been made in any case by national governments ?
For the likes of the Baltics, Scandinavians, Poland, Netherlands probably all of it.
For countries with putinist or neutralist governments such as Hungary, Spain, Austria, Cyprus and Ireland probably sod all.
I have come to the conclusion that we should rejoin.
It's taken me a while to get to that point - I've very much been on a journey and my general thinking has been that the price that would be demanded as a condition to lock the UK back into the EU probably makes it unpalatable to the majority - but I think this is by now by far our best option in an uncertain world.
I didn't support Brexit in the referendum (though I did appreciate some of the arguments on the leave side), but I did believe that the referendum result should be honoured and I disliked the political game-playing that followed. But I think the world has changed so much since 2016 and our politicians have all failed to grasp any potential opportunities that may have arisen (the only real benefit would have been to go bold and undercut in many areas, which is of itself a high risk strategy), to the point where it looks like we are now going to remain peripherally aligned but with no real influence on direction - the worst of all worlds that most of us wanted to avoid.
At the same time we are increasingly learning that we cannot expect our interests to align with the US (even if Trump is gone in 2028 there is little doubt that his politics will still pervade at the top levels of leadership for some time, even if the GOP lose power at the federal level in the immediate term).
Europe now needs to seriously start thinking about its security (economic, energy, border etc) and its place in the world. There is a huge opportunity for it to present itself as a stable bulwark and a safe place to do business. There is a lot that the UK can bring to the table in that discussion - I am not saying we hold "all the cards" but we do bring with us clear strengths in finance, skills, language, defence and security etc. The EU needs to reform, but we should play a role and part in that, not as an observer.
And finally, from a pure electoral standpoint, a rejoin referendum is surely the rabbit out of the hat that Labour need? It's the one weapon in their arsenal that could change the game, the one thing that enables them to present a clear differentiator and choice at the next GE and bring back wavering voters. It's radical, it will upset some people, but given where they sit in the polls surely it makes increasing sense.
If Labour dangle that at the next election it will be 1) indicative of a broader failure to improve the country with the levers they now have 2) effective at diverting the debate away from their record into another desperate Brexit scrap
If the Greens are still ahead of them it’s not a bad idea tbh, particularly if rejoin continues to have a huge polling lead because there is a legitimate democratic argument for it.
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
At least they got there in the end.
Governments of both colours should have done this some years ago.
I’m not a fan of government picking winners at anything, but when you have a technology where it’s going to end up being the British vs the Chinese, vs possibly the Americans if they get their act together, it makes sense to at least ensure the British technology is developed to production.
The contract will require Rolls-Royce SMR to work with GBE-N to deliver against key milestones as it commences site-specific design, regulatory engagement, and planning processes, ahead of a future Final Investment Decision.
So, alas, it does not seem as though construction will even begin yet. There doesn't seem to be any detail on what the timetable for the Final Investment Decision is.
Chris Cholerton, Chief Executive of Rolls-Royce SMR, said:
“This contract unlocks the delivery of our first three units and brings certainty to the UK SMR programme. With plans for up to six further units in Czechia, this announcement makes Rolls-Royce SMR the only company with multiple commitments in Europe."
On the face of it, the Czech Republic is making a greater commitment to Rolls-Royce SMR technology than the UK.
The trick is to avoid picking winners by backing *development* of multiple technologies.
See DARPA
When I was younger and more stupid, I used to advocate a U.K. DARPA, to various politicians.
They all wanted to “improve” the model, by picking a technology and making it a Big Project.
In this case, I would back at least 4, preferably 6 technologies. The requirements would be power generation, zero carbon etc.
So tidal ponds, SMRs etc.
Then measure actual results. And back the winners selected by reality, not a committee.
Indeed. It is quite simplistic but UK sport showed that a broad results driven approach can work. GB came back from Atlanta with its worst ever performance. After that UK Sport was formed (together with Lottery cash) it funded sports based on results - and if a sport wasn’t hitting targets funding was cut. At Rio the GB Olympic team got second in the table.
Now of course sport isn’t the same as science and other technology investments. Performance is easy to evaluate and cycles happen every four years. And let’s be honest lots more money went on Olympic sport between 96 and 2018. But I reckon a comparable approach can be taken in other areas. GB got great at the siting down sports (particularly cycling) because they consistently demonstrated results and improvements year on year so they got more and more money.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
I agree with your first point but disagree with your second .
Democracy isn’t set at just one point in time . If the people vote in a future referendum that they want to rejoin then that’s democracy . It would have to be though with a supermajority which should have been the case in 2016.
Hugely significant decisions should not be made on simple majorities where refs can be at the whims of voters who want to punish the government and ignore the collateral damage of their vote .
Yes, on both counts. The EU has demonstrated repeatedly that democracy is an also-ran in their project. I wasn't referring solely to the Brexit vote. Also, the referendum rules were set by the people that wanted to remain.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
The "EU army" was a scare story pre-Brexit. A decade on, it remains a scare story and nothing more. It's absolutely absurd to say that if we were to rejoin we'd be forced into it.
The two nearest things to an EU army are JEF and the NATO allied rapid reaction corps. Both based in and led by Britain.
For how much longer ? If we continue to allow our defence capacity to erode, we risk becoming an irrelevance.
Starmer’s ‘corrosive complacency’ on defence has put UK in peril, says ex-Nato chief George Robertson says Iran war should be wake-up call to address military underfunding in scathing remarks https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/14/starmer-accused-of-corrosive-complacency-about-defence-by-ex-head-of-nato The government has shown a “corrosive complacency towards defence” and put the UK in peril, according to a government adviser, in fierce criticism of Keir Starmer’s military policy.
George Robertson, the former Nato secretary general and author of the government’s strategic defence review, believes Starmer is “not willing to make the necessary investment”, the Financial Times reported.
In addition, Lord Robertson will warn in a lecture in Salisbury on Tuesday that the Iran war “has to be a rude wake-up call”.
The former general Richard Barrons, who co-authored the defence review with Robertson, echoed his concerns. “It is a mark of how serious it is that someone who has been a Labour party activist for more than 60 years and was a Nato secretary general has now had to say it in these terms today,” Barrons told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Robertson, a former defence secretary who led Nato from 1999 to 2003, will also accuse “non-military experts in the Treasury” of “vandalism”. “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget,” he said in an interview with the Financial Times.
He will say in his speech: “We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack. We are not safe … Britain’s national security and safety is in peril.”
Barrons said: “There’s an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe in the world we now live in, and where we actually are.”
Asked how he responded to Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, mocking the Royal Navy last week, Barrons said: “I hung my head in sorrow, but I couldn’t argue with him because although the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and the army are, in their bones, outstanding institutions, they are simply too small and too undernourished to deal with the world that we now live in. And the review says this.”
The government’s proposals to fund the strategic defence review recommendations, including a 10-year defence investment plan due by last autumn, have been repeatedly postponed amid warnings that the military faces a £28bn funding gap over the next four years.
Barrons said: “The choice on the prime minister’s desk is they either find some more money to implement a new de minimis review at the speed we agreed last year, or he is going to announce £28bn worth of cuts. And how would that fit with the world that we find ourselves in today?..
The main purpose for the British military currently is to prance around in fancy dress for the royals and tourists.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
The "EU army" was a scare story pre-Brexit. A decade on, it remains a scare story and nothing more. It's absolutely absurd to say that if we were to rejoin we'd be forced into it.
The two nearest things to an EU army are JEF and the NATO allied rapid reaction corps. Both based in and led by Britain.
For how much longer ? If we continue to allow our defence capacity to erode, we risk becoming an irrelevance.
Starmer’s ‘corrosive complacency’ on defence has put UK in peril, says ex-Nato chief George Robertson says Iran war should be wake-up call to address military underfunding in scathing remarks https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/14/starmer-accused-of-corrosive-complacency-about-defence-by-ex-head-of-nato The government has shown a “corrosive complacency towards defence” and put the UK in peril, according to a government adviser, in fierce criticism of Keir Starmer’s military policy.
George Robertson, the former Nato secretary general and author of the government’s strategic defence review, believes Starmer is “not willing to make the necessary investment”, the Financial Times reported.
In addition, Lord Robertson will warn in a lecture in Salisbury on Tuesday that the Iran war “has to be a rude wake-up call”.
The former general Richard Barrons, who co-authored the defence review with Robertson, echoed his concerns. “It is a mark of how serious it is that someone who has been a Labour party activist for more than 60 years and was a Nato secretary general has now had to say it in these terms today,” Barrons told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Robertson, a former defence secretary who led Nato from 1999 to 2003, will also accuse “non-military experts in the Treasury” of “vandalism”. “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget,” he said in an interview with the Financial Times.
He will say in his speech: “We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack. We are not safe … Britain’s national security and safety is in peril.”
Barrons said: “There’s an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe in the world we now live in, and where we actually are.”
Asked how he responded to Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, mocking the Royal Navy last week, Barrons said: “I hung my head in sorrow, but I couldn’t argue with him because although the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and the army are, in their bones, outstanding institutions, they are simply too small and too undernourished to deal with the world that we now live in. And the review says this.”
The government’s proposals to fund the strategic defence review recommendations, including a 10-year defence investment plan due by last autumn, have been repeatedly postponed amid warnings that the military faces a £28bn funding gap over the next four years.
Barrons said: “The choice on the prime minister’s desk is they either find some more money to implement a new de minimis review at the speed we agreed last year, or he is going to announce £28bn worth of cuts. And how would that fit with the world that we find ourselves in today?..
This has been one of the larger failures of Starmer's government. It also acts as a pretty good example of the way in which it has failed in everything else - delay, dithering, half-measures, exaggerated claims*, an unwillingness to do anything that might upset anyone.
* This government press release from yesterday about £50m in defence spending, ends with the possibly true statement that: "The UK is delivering the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, hitting 2.6% of GDP from 2027." It might be true, but as George Robertson says, it falls woefully short of what the moment requires, and it is a perfect example of the corrosive complacency he accuses the government of exhibiting.
If you landed from another planet with no preconceptions about earthly politics and were put in charge of improving life in the UK, would you conclude that we needed first to join the EU, or would that look like an irrelevant distraction?
The Martian would take a look around and go, "what's that big place just over the water there?"
"Europe," we'd say. "Our continent."
"Ah ok. So you're nicely aligned with that then, are you? You know, for trade and security and all of that good stuff?"
"Er no. We were but ten years ago we decided we'd be better off on our jack jones."
"And are you?"
"Well it depends who you listen to. The expert consensus is no we're a lot worse off. And indeed that's how it feels to people. It's more or less accepted that we made a mistake leaving."
"Oh dear."
"But hang on, it's not quite unanimous."
"There are holdouts?"
"Yep. A big one. PB's 'Fishing'. He reckons it's nonsense and a few of the diehard Leave posters on there, kind of the last soldiers in the jungle, agree or at least they say they do."
Martian head starts flashing and beeping, emits a metallic manic chuckle, "For Mash Get Smash".
As a Remainer, the idea that we would have been growing at something like double the rate of our peers in the EU, if we had remained, is farcical.
Better, I can buy into. Say 120% of the growth rate elsewhere.
Double requires an explanation of how. What would be growing like crazy?
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
Ukraine joining the EU still has to get past the new guy in Hungary.
He is not a fan of the idea.
The EU will offer some sweeteners to Hungary to try and get them on board !
Ukraine joining the EU is a terrible idea for the EU. Corruption is endemic.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
Ukraine joining the EU still has to get past the new guy in Hungary.
He is not a fan of the idea.
The EU will offer some sweeteners to Hungary to try and get them on board !
Ukraine joining the EU is a terrible idea for the EU. Corruption is endemic.
I know but apparently Ukraine is quite corrupt too.
The banter heuristic demands Lab 25%, Con 25%, Ref 25% and a roulette wheel to decide who wins each constituency. Rien ne va plus...
Not ambitious enough.
If you have a close vote share spread between the five largest parties, then differences in vote distribution can create an outcome where the number of seats are distributed inversely to votes received. Something a bit like:
“several ships coming from Iran were able to cross the Strait of Hormuz in the hours before and after the U.S. military blockade, according to the global trade analysis firm Kpler”
“Ship-tracking data also showed a [Guyanese flagged but Chinese owned & operated] tanker that had been placed under sanctions by the United States reversing course near the strait shortly before the blockade but then completing its passage later”
If you landed from another planet with no preconceptions about earthly politics and were put in charge of improving life in the UK, would you conclude that we needed first to join the EU, or would that look like an irrelevant distraction?
The Martian would take a look around and go, "what's that big place just over the water there?"
"Europe," we'd say. "Our continent."
"Ah ok. So you're nicely aligned with that then, are you? You know, for trade and security and all of that good stuff?"
"Er no. We were but ten years ago we decided we'd be better off on our jack jones."
"And are you?"
"Well it depends who you listen to. The expert consensus is no we're a lot worse off. And indeed that's how it feels to people. It's more or less accepted that we made a mistake leaving."
"Oh dear."
"But hang on, it's not quite unanimous."
"There are holdouts?"
"Yep. A big one. PB's 'Fishing'. He reckons it's nonsense and a few of the diehard Leave posters on there, kind of the last soldiers in the jungle, agree or at least they say they do."
Martian head starts flashing and beeping, emits a metallic manic chuckle, "For Mash Get Smash".
Does the Martian also think that Canada should be part of the USA and that Japan should be part of China ?
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
Ukraine joining the EU still has to get past the new guy in Hungary.
He is not a fan of the idea.
The EU will offer some sweeteners to Hungary to try and get them on board !
Ukraine joining the EU is a terrible idea for the EU. Corruption is endemic.
I know but apparently Ukraine is quite corrupt too.
The alignment process for joining the EU includes getting corruption down, at each step in the process.
Watching this process in Montenegro has been rather interesting.
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
At least they got there in the end.
Governments of both colours should have done this some years ago.
I’m not a fan of government picking winners at anything, but when you have a technology where it’s going to end up being the British vs the Chinese, vs possibly the Americans if they get their act together, it makes sense to at least ensure the British technology is developed to production.
The contract will require Rolls-Royce SMR to work with GBE-N to deliver against key milestones as it commences site-specific design, regulatory engagement, and planning processes, ahead of a future Final Investment Decision.
So, alas, it does not seem as though construction will even begin yet. There doesn't seem to be any detail on what the timetable for the Final Investment Decision is.
Chris Cholerton, Chief Executive of Rolls-Royce SMR, said:
“This contract unlocks the delivery of our first three units and brings certainty to the UK SMR programme. With plans for up to six further units in Czechia, this announcement makes Rolls-Royce SMR the only company with multiple commitments in Europe."
On the face of it, the Czech Republic is making a greater commitment to Rolls-Royce SMR technology than the UK.
The trick is to avoid picking winners by backing *development* of multiple technologies.
See DARPA
When I was younger and more stupid, I used to advocate a U.K. DARPA, to various politicians.
They all wanted to “improve” the model, by picking a technology and making it a Big Project.
In this case, I would back at least 4, preferably 6 technologies. The requirements would be power generation, zero carbon etc.
So tidal ponds, SMRs etc.
Then measure actual results. And back the winners selected by reality, not a committee.
Even specifying requirements is tricky though. What about, say, that technology that isn't quite zero carbon, but is cheap and easy to implement? Doesn't that get a look in?
If you landed from another planet with no preconceptions about earthly politics and were put in charge of improving life in the UK, would you conclude that we needed first to join the EU, or would that look like an irrelevant distraction?
The Martian would take a look around and go, "what's that big place just over the water there?"
"Europe," we'd say. "Our continent."
"Ah ok. So you're nicely aligned with that then, are you? You know, for trade and security and all of that good stuff?"
"Er no. We were but ten years ago we decided we'd be better off on our jack jones."
"And are you?"
"Well it depends who you listen to. The expert consensus is no we're a lot worse off. And indeed that's how it feels to people. It's more or less accepted that we made a mistake leaving."
"Oh dear."
"But hang on, it's not quite unanimous."
"There are holdouts?"
"Yep. A big one. PB's 'Fishing'. He reckons it's nonsense and a few of the diehard Leave posters on there, kind of the last soldiers in the jungle, agree or at least they say they do."
Martian head starts flashing and beeping, emits a metallic manic chuckle, "For Mash Get Smash".
As a Remainer, the idea that we would have been growing at something like double the rate of our peers in the EU, if we had remained, is farcical.
Better, I can buy into. Say 120% of the growth rate elsewhere.
Double requires an explanation of how. What would be growing like crazy?
The optimistic scenario (which admittedly falls at the first hurdle, but I'll run with it anyway) is that victory for Remain in the referendum settles Britain's place in the EU decisively, and so removes the European psychodrama as a distracting element in British politics, and removes uncertainty for investment. Britain becomes the European centre for investment in technologies of the future - for the electrical and renewable transition, for pharmaceuticals following the vaccine success in the pandemic, for AI and IT in general.
If you landed from another planet with no preconceptions about earthly politics and were put in charge of improving life in the UK, would you conclude that we needed first to join the EU, or would that look like an irrelevant distraction?
The Martian would take a look around and go, "what's that big place just over the water there?"
"Europe," we'd say. "Our continent."
"Ah ok. So you're nicely aligned with that then, are you? You know, for trade and security and all of that good stuff?"
"Er no. We were but ten years ago we decided we'd be better off on our jack jones."
"And are you?"
"Well it depends who you listen to. The expert consensus is no we're a lot worse off. And indeed that's how it feels to people. It's more or less accepted that we made a mistake leaving."
"Oh dear."
"But hang on, it's not quite unanimous."
"There are holdouts?"
"Yep. A big one. PB's 'Fishing'. He reckons it's nonsense and a few of the diehard Leave posters on there, kind of the last soldiers in the jungle, agree or at least they say they do."
Martian head starts flashing and beeping, emits a metallic manic chuckle, "For Mash Get Smash".
As a Remainer, the idea that we would have been growing at something like double the rate of our peers in the EU, if we had remained, is farcical.
Better, I can buy into. Say 120% of the growth rate elsewhere.
Double requires an explanation of how. What would be growing like crazy?
Rejoining is not the economic panacea that some think it would be. It doesn't solve the structural problems in our economy and it doesn't negate the need for genuine regulatory reform and reform of public services/the role of government, and for the government to get a grip on spending. But I think it's fairly clear it does give us some economic benefit, and being inside the club is preferable to being on the periphery.
We are also grappling with many of the same issues that EU nations (particularly Western European) are struggling with. Look at France, for instance.
For their many faults at least Labour are pro nuclear power
At least they got there in the end.
Governments of both colours should have done this some years ago.
I’m not a fan of government picking winners at anything, but when you have a technology where it’s going to end up being the British vs the Chinese, vs possibly the Americans if they get their act together, it makes sense to at least ensure the British technology is developed to production.
The contract will require Rolls-Royce SMR to work with GBE-N to deliver against key milestones as it commences site-specific design, regulatory engagement, and planning processes, ahead of a future Final Investment Decision.
So, alas, it does not seem as though construction will even begin yet. There doesn't seem to be any detail on what the timetable for the Final Investment Decision is.
Chris Cholerton, Chief Executive of Rolls-Royce SMR, said:
“This contract unlocks the delivery of our first three units and brings certainty to the UK SMR programme. With plans for up to six further units in Czechia, this announcement makes Rolls-Royce SMR the only company with multiple commitments in Europe."
On the face of it, the Czech Republic is making a greater commitment to Rolls-Royce SMR technology than the UK.
The trick is to avoid picking winners by backing *development* of multiple technologies.
See DARPA
When I was younger and more stupid, I used to advocate a U.K. DARPA, to various politicians.
They all wanted to “improve” the model, by picking a technology and making it a Big Project.
In this case, I would back at least 4, preferably 6 technologies. The requirements would be power generation, zero carbon etc.
So tidal ponds, SMRs etc.
Then measure actual results. And back the winners selected by reality, not a committee.
China now does something similar, but on an industrial scale.
Great article. Shows how state grants in China are not “additional boost” but intentional hunger games.
Incentivize 500 companies to start. Put money in supply chain to force competition. Dog eat dog until its 1-4 mega corps.
Barriers to trade inhibit growth, and Brexit was a new barrier to our most important trade partner. This damages both economies.
I note todays darling Peter Magyar has pointed the way to the future. Both him and Zelensky have suggested Brejoin as important to the future of European defence.
It's not immediately obvious to me why rejoining the EU is a necessary precursor to the UK being a valuable partner to Europe's defence. The only connection I see is that it would assuage hurt feelings in the EU and affirm their belief that democracy is less important than their project.
It’s certainly possible to argue that having the UK outside the EU has been a significant positive when it comes to defence in particular. It’s meant that, since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, defence hasn’t been run exclusively from Brussels, and there’s been little attempt from the EU to try and push defence into their sphere of competency.
I’m sure that, with the UK still in the EU, everything except nuclear weapons would be pushed into a version of the “EU army” wished-about for decades. An EU army which would have done an awful lot of talking among the many big brass hats, but with little action resulting.
What evidence is there for that ?
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation. From which we are largely excluded.
The EU is by far the biggest contributor to Ukraine. Many member states make additional significant contributions. The EU has also played a vital coordinating role, particularly on sanctions and energy security. Joining the EU is Ukraine's most important strategic objective once it gets through the war.
The "EU army" was a scare story pre-Brexit. A decade on, it remains a scare story and nothing more. It's absolutely absurd to say that if we were to rejoin we'd be forced into it.
The two nearest things to an EU army are JEF and the NATO allied rapid reaction corps. Both based in and led by Britain.
For how much longer ? If we continue to allow our defence capacity to erode, we risk becoming an irrelevance.
Starmer’s ‘corrosive complacency’ on defence has put UK in peril, says ex-Nato chief George Robertson says Iran war should be wake-up call to address military underfunding in scathing remarks https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/14/starmer-accused-of-corrosive-complacency-about-defence-by-ex-head-of-nato The government has shown a “corrosive complacency towards defence” and put the UK in peril, according to a government adviser, in fierce criticism of Keir Starmer’s military policy.
George Robertson, the former Nato secretary general and author of the government’s strategic defence review, believes Starmer is “not willing to make the necessary investment”, the Financial Times reported.
In addition, Lord Robertson will warn in a lecture in Salisbury on Tuesday that the Iran war “has to be a rude wake-up call”.
The former general Richard Barrons, who co-authored the defence review with Robertson, echoed his concerns. “It is a mark of how serious it is that someone who has been a Labour party activist for more than 60 years and was a Nato secretary general has now had to say it in these terms today,” Barrons told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Robertson, a former defence secretary who led Nato from 1999 to 2003, will also accuse “non-military experts in the Treasury” of “vandalism”. “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget,” he said in an interview with the Financial Times.
He will say in his speech: “We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack. We are not safe … Britain’s national security and safety is in peril.”
Barrons said: “There’s an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe in the world we now live in, and where we actually are.”
Asked how he responded to Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, mocking the Royal Navy last week, Barrons said: “I hung my head in sorrow, but I couldn’t argue with him because although the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and the army are, in their bones, outstanding institutions, they are simply too small and too undernourished to deal with the world that we now live in. And the review says this.”
The government’s proposals to fund the strategic defence review recommendations, including a 10-year defence investment plan due by last autumn, have been repeatedly postponed amid warnings that the military faces a £28bn funding gap over the next four years.
Barrons said: “The choice on the prime minister’s desk is they either find some more money to implement a new de minimis review at the speed we agreed last year, or he is going to announce £28bn worth of cuts. And how would that fit with the world that we find ourselves in today?..
This has been one of the larger failures of Starmer's government. It also acts as a pretty good example of the way in which it has failed in everything else - delay, dithering, half-measures, exaggerated claims*, an unwillingness to do anything that might upset anyone.
* This government press release from yesterday about £50m in defence spending, ends with the possibly true statement that: "The UK is delivering the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, hitting 2.6% of GDP from 2027." It might be true, but as George Robertson says, it falls woefully short of what the moment requires, and it is a perfect example of the corrosive complacency he accuses the government of exhibiting.
They’re still stuck measuring inputs rather than outputs though.
Defence isn’t a money-spending competition, it’s a capability competition.
If you landed from another planet with no preconceptions about earthly politics and were put in charge of improving life in the UK, would you conclude that we needed first to join the EU, or would that look like an irrelevant distraction?
The Martian would take a look around and go, "what's that big place just over the water there?"
"Europe," we'd say. "Our continent."
"Ah ok. So you're nicely aligned with that then, are you? You know, for trade and security and all of that good stuff?"
"Er no. We were but ten years ago we decided we'd be better off on our jack jones."
"And are you?"
"Well it depends who you listen to. The expert consensus is no we're a lot worse off. And indeed that's how it feels to people. It's more or less accepted that we made a mistake leaving."
"Oh dear."
"But hang on, it's not quite unanimous."
"There are holdouts?"
"Yep. A big one. PB's 'Fishing'. He reckons it's nonsense and a few of the diehard Leave posters on there, kind of the last soldiers in the jungle, agree or at least they say they do."
Martian head starts flashing and beeping, emits a metallic manic chuckle, "For Mash Get Smash".
As a Remainer, the idea that we would have been growing at something like double the rate of our peers in the EU, if we had remained, is farcical.
Better, I can buy into. Say 120% of the growth rate elsewhere.
Double requires an explanation of how. What would be growing like crazy?
Rejoining is not the economic panacea that some think it would be. It doesn't solve the structural problems in our economy and it doesn't negate the need for genuine regulatory reform and reform of public services/the role of government, and for the government to get a grip on spending. But I think it's fairly clear it does give us some economic benefit, and being inside the club is preferable to being on the periphery.
We are also grappling with many of the same issues that EU nations (particularly Western European) are struggling with. Look at France, for instance.
Rejoin now is the same as Brexit was before - the easy to articulate, hard to prove, salve of all our problems.
BTW does anyone know why the stock markets keep going up and the oil price isn't ?
It all looks too optimistic to me given the lack of movement through Hormuz.
Confidence in an eventual resolution, I think. The fact Trump doesn't appear to be threatening a mass extinction event at the moment and the ceasefire does appear to be holding (notwithstanding this latest blockade) points to something being worked out somehow at some point - even if it is a messy fudge which leaves everyone worse than before (most likely).
WSJ: Saudi Arabia is pressing the U.S. to drop its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and return to the negotiating table, fearing President Trump’s move to close it off could lead Iran to escalate and disrupt other important shipping routes, Arab officials said.
If you landed from another planet with no preconceptions about earthly politics and were put in charge of improving life in the UK, would you conclude that we needed first to join the EU, or would that look like an irrelevant distraction?
The Martian would take a look around and go, "what's that big place just over the water there?"
"Europe," we'd say. "Our continent."
"Ah ok. So you're nicely aligned with that then, are you? You know, for trade and security and all of that good stuff?"
"Er no. We were but ten years ago we decided we'd be better off on our jack jones."
"And are you?"
"Well it depends who you listen to. The expert consensus is no we're a lot worse off. And indeed that's how it feels to people. It's more or less accepted that we made a mistake leaving."
"Oh dear."
"But hang on, it's not quite unanimous."
"There are holdouts?"
"Yep. A big one. PB's 'Fishing'. He reckons it's nonsense and a few of the diehard Leave posters on there, kind of the last soldiers in the jungle, agree or at least they say they do."
Martian head starts flashing and beeping, emits a metallic manic chuckle, "For Mash Get Smash".
As a Remainer, the idea that we would have been growing at something like double the rate of our peers in the EU, if we had remained, is farcical.
Better, I can buy into. Say 120% of the growth rate elsewhere.
Double requires an explanation of how. What would be growing like crazy?
Rejoining is not the economic panacea that some think it would be. It doesn't solve the structural problems in our economy and it doesn't negate the need for genuine regulatory reform and reform of public services/the role of government, and for the government to get a grip on spending. But I think it's fairly clear it does give us some economic benefit, and being inside the club is preferable to being on the periphery.
We are also grappling with many of the same issues that EU nations (particularly Western European) are struggling with. Look at France, for instance.
Rejoin now is the same as Brexit was before - the easy to articulate, hard to prove, salve of all our problems.
Partially true.
The difference is that we have now tried both, so rejoin is not quite as 'wish and a prayer' as leave was.
One does see that 8% figure being thrown around rather a lot.
But in some senses it doesn't matter. Whether it is 4% or 14% we are still out and a majority of people now think it was a mistake and we will not be rejoining in the next decade at the very least.
If you landed from another planet with no preconceptions about earthly politics and were put in charge of improving life in the UK, would you conclude that we needed first to join the EU, or would that look like an irrelevant distraction?
The Martian would take a look around and go, "what's that big place just over the water there?"
"Europe," we'd say. "Our continent."
"Ah ok. So you're nicely aligned with that then, are you? You know, for trade and security and all of that good stuff?"
"Er no. We were but ten years ago we decided we'd be better off on our jack jones."
"And are you?"
"Well it depends who you listen to. The expert consensus is no we're a lot worse off. And indeed that's how it feels to people. It's more or less accepted that we made a mistake leaving."
"Oh dear."
"But hang on, it's not quite unanimous."
"There are holdouts?"
"Yep. A big one. PB's 'Fishing'. He reckons it's nonsense and a few of the diehard Leave posters on there, kind of the last soldiers in the jungle, agree or at least they say they do."
Martian head starts flashing and beeping, emits a metallic manic chuckle, "For Mash Get Smash".
As a Remainer, the idea that we would have been growing at something like double the rate of our peers in the EU, if we had remained, is farcical.
Better, I can buy into. Say 120% of the growth rate elsewhere.
Double requires an explanation of how. What would be growing like crazy?
The optimistic scenario (which admittedly falls at the first hurdle, but I'll run with it anyway) is that victory for Remain in the referendum settles Britain's place in the EU decisively, and so removes the European psychodrama as a distracting element in British politics, and removes uncertainty for investment. Britain becomes the European centre for investment in technologies of the future - for the electrical and renewable transition, for pharmaceuticals following the vaccine success in the pandemic, for AI and IT in general.
Things could have been great.
Double average EU growth would be lovely.
But promising it without evidence how, reminds me more of Liz Truss than say, Norman Lamont.
I voted for Remain, not on ideological grounds. But because I thought I Brexit would be cluster fuck. Which it turned out to be.
Can we have some actual evidence of how we get from X to Y, please?
WSJ: Saudi Arabia is pressing the U.S. to drop its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and return to the negotiating table, fearing President Trump’s move to close it off could lead Iran to escalate and disrupt other important shipping routes, Arab officials said.
Didn't someone post the other day that the Saudis were going to pay the US a trillion dollars to continue the war ?
BTW does anyone know why the stock markets keep going up and the oil price isn't ?
It all looks too optimistic to me given the lack of movement through Hormuz.
The pattern in the second Trump Presidency has been:
1. Trump does something that will wreck the global economy. 2. Markets panic and fall. 3. Trump TACOs. 4. Massive market relief rally. 5. Profit (made by Trump insiders at the expense of everyone else in the market).
Many market participants might be stupid, and markets might be irrational, but there's only so many times that cycle can be repeated before the market starts pricing in the Trump TACO, and refuses to lose money to Trump insiders by panicking and falling.
There is a strong assumption that, somehow, however humiliating it might be for Trump, or however recalcitrant the Iranians are proving to be, a way will be found to get oil moving again. Paradoxically, the strength of this belief removes the one external influence that Trump reliably reacts to (a collapse in market confidence). This raises the risk that, just as in the roadrunner cartoons, the economy will be well past the edge of the cliff before the market realises that it ought to be falling, and then it will fall a very long way, and not be able to bounceback so well when Trump tries to fix what he has broken.
OT - That fishing boat has sailed but I hope writing that helped you cope with your frustration.
Brexit was promised to herald a new golden age of world power and prosperity for the British people. The gap between reality and the promises is what has turned people against it. Not an economic report that almost noone in the real world has heard of let alone read. History proved communism a failure, history proved fascism a failure and history has proved Brexit a failure. Not everyone from those groups is ready to accept that fact but it remains a remorseless fact none the less.
Swalwell to quit the House after prosecutors in Manhattan open an investigation into the sexual assault/rape allegations against him.
Not clear yet what the implications are for the California governor primary, as he will still be on the ballot despite withdrawing, but it seems likely that it will consolidate Democratic support around one of the other two leading candidates and is probably therefore bad news for the Republicans hoping to take the top two spots.
Gonzales, in Texas (Republican) also to quit the House for much the same reason.
Honestly, what is it with US politicians?
Quite apart from the ethics of it, how do they find the time for sexual impropriety? As an MP with a far smaller constituency than any Congressman, I never felt there were enough hours in the day to stay in touch with voters as much as I'd have liked and stay married to one person, let alone look around for someone else.
How many staffers did you have ?
There's a lot more money in US politics.
5-6 half-time people - half of them in the constituency, half in Parliament. They could deal with routine admin queries and follow-up, but I always followed up anything new myself.
Comments
There was a small, admittedly growing, minority (Goldsmith's party then UKIP) of rightwingers who grumbled about it.
As a whole the UK generally got on with it, up until the 2008 (US bank triggered) financial crash, and from my memory generally prosperous and content, there was some resentment among trades about the increased competition and in other low wage sectors, the EU labour has been replaced by other migrant labour.
Then there was the Brexit referendum, following which we've been in angst over the terms of leaving, then not implementing the full terms of leaving because we'd be totally f****d and now, without having ever fully brexited on "our" terms, we're realigning while having tantrums about "punishment beatings" as the realities of no longer being members of the EU are slowly implemented.
COVID, Ukraine and the US becoming a total basket-case have been such large externalities that pre and post "leaving" comparisons have been rendered meaningless, even if we had properly left. In reality we're still in transition, the only uncertainty is whether we're in the transition of leaving or returning.
Conservatives voted Remain.
"Had Johnson or Gove taken over after Cameron with a clearly articulated vision of what leaving the EU was about"
And therein lies the problem
There was no cohesive vision. Even today nobody can articulate cohesive vision for something so fundamentally stupid.
Watch the presser with the 2 of them the day after the vote. As was captioned at the time you can almost hear them thinking to each other "You take back control. No, you take it!. YOU TOUCHED IT LAST!"
Neither of them wanted to actually win. Both of them knew it was fucking stupid but wanted short term tactical advantage. In BoZo's case it won him the premiership (eventually) and he completely fucked it up.
Congratulations...
Control migration from the EU
Spend more money on the NHS
Take back control
All have been achieved.
Now if anyone expected a 'land of milk and honey' they were fooling themselves.
That said, different demographics have experienced different economic conditions this decade.
For example its been relatively far more advantageous for young, northern working class than it has been for southern graduates.
Though that has less to do with brexit than more general socioeconomic trends.
Apart from the unnecessary waste of time, effort and bickering, we can be pretty certain the EU won't offer us status quo ante referendum - were we to seek to join now, it would be a more integrationist offering (probably with a period of associate membership to prepare us for Euro day).
That's how it see it today - in 20 years, who knows? I did once have a dream (never eat the green stuff at the back of the fridge) of listening to a Conservative Prime Minister pledging to take us back into the EU. Impossible? If you'd said in 1975 a Conservative would lead us out of the EEC noone would have believed you - Thatcher was one of the most enthusiastic proponents of our membership - the Tories were the Europeans, Labour were the Euro-sceptics.
Nothing is forever - if one day it becomes overwhelmingly and indisputably obvious rejoining the EU would be in our national economic interest, I'd expect the Government of the day (whatever its composition) to move forward on that basis. That day isn't today or even tomorrow but to rule it out in perpetuity seems absurd.
From the outside, yes, we can wish the EU well and want it to prosper (if they are doing well, we'll likely get some benefit) and we do need to construct a working economic relationship of some kind but for now and for the moment, there are too many other political and social obstacles for us to be able to rejoin.
I think it's fair to say that immigration has been a more prominent and emotive topic in political discourse than Brexit for the last few years, which is a measure of how Rejoiners have failed to win control of the political debate to build a consensus in favour of Rejoin.
Governments of both colours should have done this some years ago.
I’m not a fan of government picking winners at anything, but when you have a technology where it’s going to end up being the British vs the Chinese, vs possibly the Americans if they get their act together, it makes sense to at least ensure the British technology is developed to production.
Also massive export potential.
Doing better than Germany is a very low bar at the moment.
Democracy isn’t set at just one point in time . If the people vote in a future referendum that they want to rejoin then that’s democracy . It would have to be though with a supermajority which should have been the case in 2016.
Hugely significant decisions should not be made on simple majorities where refs can be at the whims of voters who want to punish the government and ignore the collateral damage of their vote .
One was that they didn't like/trust each other. The Conservative Party has always been happy to accelerate the survival of the fittest by making sure that there are a decent number of vipers in the nest. The Johnson years were extreme, but not that extreme in that regard.
Another was that they didn't really have a clear vision of what leaving the EU was about- certainly not one that included "it will mean we lose X but that will be worth it because of Y". It's why the "holding all the cards" rhetoric was so important, because of the implication that there wouldn't need to be any trade-offs.
And ultimately, because any specific concrete Brexit is lkely to be unpopular, because everyone's list of what they wanted to gain from Brexit and what they were prepared to give up to achieve that was different.
But yes- the exploding clown car race that was the 2016 leadership election ought to have been a massive red flag that the subsequent years were unlikely to go well.
A couple of potential "flaws" to your list of flaws off the top of my head.
Your list of UK specific factors potentially affecting the economy are mostly from after 2020. UK underperformance kicked in straight after the referendum. Comparator countries have their own country specific factors. In particular Germany with an export dependent economy has been badly hit by an unwinding of globalisation and disruptive changes in automotive markets.
The period 2008 to 2016 that you use as a comparator period includes the worst British recession since WW2. No-one seriously suggests Brexit was worse economically than the GFC. The difference with Brexit was that we voted for the economic damage. It was well into that period before we got back to where we were before. Economic growth going into the referendum was actually quite good.
It's in both party's interests to see Reform and the Greens weaken but at the moment they are caught between the proverbial rock and the metaphorical hard place.
Time wounds all heels, as a cobbler once told me, and the one thing both Labour and the Conservatives have is three years to undermine Farage and Polanski though it's quite possible both will undermine themselves.
Anyone, of course, stupid enough to try and make predictions about 2029 from now deserves all the vitriol they are likely to attract.
Not things associated with recent governments.
In particular, many pro-Brexit voices promised the “sunlit uplands“ that trade outside the EU that had previously been blocked would bring the UK. These “sunlit uplands“ were illusory, as post-Brexit Britain has so amply demonstrated.
But we’ve been over all this before on PB many times!
The Democrats at least now seem prepared to do some serious cleanup - though this case seems to have shared the toxic dynamic of a lot of people being aware for quite some time that there was a problem (though without irrefutable evidence), and brushing it under the carpet.
The talk is that it was leaked by his opponent Katie Porter (who appears to have some issues of here own).
On a larger scale, I think there is probably enormous political scope for a reformer outside of the Democratic establishment to be their nominee in 2028.
That is, ironically, the dynamic that brought Trump to power - or Carney in Canada, or Meloni in Italy, to take slightly more positive examples.
Exercising political responsibility across the full spectrum is a serious business for serious people. Maybe Gove and Johnson weren't those people, but that doesn't mean that it's "fucking stupid" for ultimate responsibility to reside here instead of palming off various things to an international body.
The contract will require Rolls-Royce SMR to work with GBE-N to deliver against key milestones as it commences site-specific design, regulatory engagement, and planning processes, ahead of a future Final Investment Decision.
So, alas, it does not seem as though construction will even begin yet. There doesn't seem to be any detail on what the timetable for the Final Investment Decision is.
Chris Cholerton, Chief Executive of Rolls-Royce SMR, said:
“This contract unlocks the delivery of our first three units and brings certainty to the UK SMR programme. With plans for up to six further units in Czechia, this announcement makes Rolls-Royce SMR the only company with multiple commitments in Europe."
On the face of it, the Czech Republic is making a greater commitment to Rolls-Royce SMR technology than the UK.
This should have been sorted by brakes, limitation, discretion etc well before 2016. If it had, none of this farrago would have occurred.
So unless a clear 60 to 70% for rejoin the EU in polls it will just hit Labour in swing seats
The most significant thing the EU has done is create a large long term loan facility for member countries to invest in defence innovation.
From which we are largely excluded.
In both Australia and Canada (Spain too if you want), the centre-right Opposition parties enjoyed substantial leads up to the point Trump became President again in January 2025. The Australian coalition was polling 40% - ten points in front of Labor - in early 2025 yet contrived by May to turn it into the worst result since 1943.
Poilievre's Conservatives were well ahead in Canada but managed to lose.
Trump's immediate policy pronouncements drove voters in other countries away from any party which showed even the slightest support - when Trump started going on about invading Canada, Poilievre saw his support collapse.
This was nothing to do with global economics but simply anti-Trump sentiment in countries who saw a new and more adversarial relationship developing with Washington and centre-right politicians who had been so busy attacking Harris and the American Democrats and celebrating their defeat now had to deal with the reality.
Even in Denmark recently, the centre-right Venstre lost ground and it seems likely a new centre-left Government will take over.
You will argue (and rightly) the only centre-right politician who has successfully articulated an anti-Trump position is Meloni in Italy but while her FdL party continues to poll strongly, her coalition partners aren't doing so well and it's far from clear whether she will survive at the 2027 election or whether she too will be replaced by a centre-left coalition led by the Democratic Party.
Rejoin will be the Ming vase strategy for next time. Say nothing that matters. Because it worked so well last time.
Bit them on the arse. But worked.
I think 50% is the only threshold that makes any sense (and for that matter, that's why it's by far the most common threshold in referenda around the world).
The UK will transition back into EU alignment, having never exited, it will be less than pre-2016 and there'll be occasional anti-EU outbursts.
Did it ?
UK
2016 2.2%
2017 3.0%
2018 1.6%
2019 1.3%
France
2016 1.1%
2017 2.3%
2018 1.9%
2019 1.8%
Germany
2016 2.2%
2017 2.8%
2018 1.1%
2019 1.0%
Italy
2016 1.3%
2017 1.7%
2018 0.9%
2019 0.4%
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/full-year-gdp-growth
https://tradingeconomics.com/france/full-year-gdp-growth
https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/full-year-gdp-growth
https://tradingeconomics.com/italy/full-year-gdp-growth
Germany with an export dependent economy has been badly hit by an unwinding of globalisation and disruptive changes in automotive markets.
Maybe so but isn't that an argument that the EU will continue to struggle economically if its strongest nation is no longer suited for the modern world ?
What are the other options? The Greens with their completely off-the wall economics? The never-build-anything-anywhere LibDems? A Conservative party that still hasn’t even begun to understand how & why it presided over 17 years of economic stagnation? Reform, who so far appear to embody nothing but corruption & incompetence the moment they get into power anywhere?
At least Labour are trying to grapple with what ails this country. They may fail in the attempt but to me it seems as if they are the only party that is acting with any kind of realism.
We get the politicians we deserve as an electorate in my opinion.
(I reserve the right to change my opinion as & when policy platforms change & new voices come to the fore! I have hope for the LibDems, but very little for Green/Con/Reform sadly.)
Harris in 2024 managed to lose lots of Biden 2020 votes and lost every swing state Biden won in 2020
See DARPA
When I was younger and more stupid, I used to advocate a U.K. DARPA, to various politicians.
They all wanted to “improve” the model, by picking a technology and making it a Big Project.
In this case, I would back at least 4, preferably 6 technologies. The requirements would be power generation, zero carbon etc.
So tidal ponds, SMRs etc.
Then measure actual results. And back the winners selected by reality, not a committee.
He is not a fan of the idea.
The question I am trying to answer is whether they are moving things in the right direction (albeit much more slowly than I would hope) or if they are unwilling to tackle the big problems that exist, and so nothing fundamentally is going to change while they are in government?
At the moment I am leaning towards the latter.
There's a lot more money in US politics.
A decade on, it remains a scare story and nothing more. It's absolutely absurd to say that if we were to rejoin we'd be forced into it.
Magyar (for now) seems to be a pragmatist; I don't get the impression he is categorically opposed to to it.
Populism is a curse: When you have an electorate that doesn’t want to accept economic reality, you end up with political parties that promise the impossible & will inevitably fail to deliver it whilst thrashing around on the hook of said economic reality.
"Europe," we'd say. "Our continent."
"Ah ok. So you're nicely aligned with that then, are you? You know, for trade and security and all of that good stuff?"
"Er no. We were but ten years ago we decided we'd be better off on our jack jones."
"And are you?"
"Well it depends who you listen to. The expert consensus is no we're a lot worse off. And indeed that's how it feels to people. It's more or less accepted that we made a mistake leaving."
"Oh dear."
"But hang on, it's not quite unanimous."
"There are holdouts?"
"Yep. A big one. PB's 'Fishing'. He reckons it's nonsense and a few of the diehard Leave posters on there, kind of the last soldiers in the jungle, agree or at least they say they do."
Martian head starts flashing and beeping, emits a metallic manic chuckle, "For Mash Get Smash".
One day politicians will learn that foisting huge social changes on a country without any democratic debate is completely counter-productive.
Actually they probably won't.
If we continue to allow our defence capacity to erode, we risk becoming an irrelevance.
Starmer’s ‘corrosive complacency’ on defence has put UK in peril, says ex-Nato chief
George Robertson says Iran war should be wake-up call to address military underfunding in scathing remarks
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/14/starmer-accused-of-corrosive-complacency-about-defence-by-ex-head-of-nato
The government has shown a “corrosive complacency towards defence” and put the UK in peril, according to a government adviser, in fierce criticism of Keir Starmer’s military policy.
George Robertson, the former Nato secretary general and author of the government’s strategic defence review, believes Starmer is “not willing to make the necessary investment”, the Financial Times reported.
In addition, Lord Robertson will warn in a lecture in Salisbury on Tuesday that the Iran war “has to be a rude wake-up call”.
The former general Richard Barrons, who co-authored the defence review with Robertson, echoed his concerns. “It is a mark of how serious it is that someone who has been a Labour party activist for more than 60 years and was a Nato secretary general has now had to say it in these terms today,” Barrons told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Robertson, a former defence secretary who led Nato from 1999 to 2003, will also accuse “non-military experts in the Treasury” of “vandalism”. “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget,” he said in an interview with the Financial Times.
He will say in his speech: “We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack. We are not safe … Britain’s national security and safety is in peril.”
Barrons said: “There’s an enormous gap between where we have to be to keep the country safe in the world we now live in, and where we actually are.”
Asked how he responded to Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, mocking the Royal Navy last week, Barrons said: “I hung my head in sorrow, but I couldn’t argue with him because although the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and the army are, in their bones, outstanding institutions, they are simply too small and too undernourished to deal with the world that we now live in. And the review says this.”
The government’s proposals to fund the strategic defence review recommendations, including a 10-year defence investment plan due by last autumn, have been repeatedly postponed amid warnings that the military faces a £28bn funding gap over the next four years.
Barrons said: “The choice on the prime minister’s desk is they either find some more money to implement a new de minimis review at the speed we agreed last year, or he is going to announce £28bn worth of cuts. And how would that fit with the world that we find ourselves in today?..
Russia’s revenue from oil exports almost doubled in March after Moscow received sanctions relief aimed at easing surging energy prices during the US-Israel war on Iran, according to the International Energy Agency.
The country earned $19bn last month as crude and oil product exports soared to 7.1 million barrels per day from just 320,000 in February, it said.
The US eased some restrictions on sales of Russian crude imposed over Russia’s war against Ukraine, allowing countries to buy oil that was already at sea until April 11.
A vote for the Greens (or Reform, for those whose instincts run to the right) would therefore offer a corrective insofar as it would indicate that the problems are big enough that orthodox tinkering won't fix them.
(My personal vote is complicated by being located in Scotland, where a vote for the Greens is also a vote against the Union [British], so I've actually let my electoral registration lapse, as I'm not sure I can decide which way to vote.)
In the 1980s. when I worked in ICI HQ, the Board picked two winners for special attention and cash. From memory, it was PVC and Pruteen. It wasn't pharmaceuticals which actually proved to be the big winner but it didn't save ICI.
Mark Zuckerberg bet billions on the metaverse being the next big thing, and has just pulled the plug on it.
As you say, far better to have a portfolio of technology pilots and see which ones succeed in the real world.
Whereas some countries have given up to five times as much.
The relevant question is how much of that EU aid would have been made in any case by national governments ?
For the likes of the Baltics, Scandinavians, Poland, Netherlands probably all of it.
For countries with putinist or neutralist governments such as Hungary, Spain, Austria, Cyprus and Ireland probably sod all.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/?srsltid=AfmBOor4egrtOwJxukSagg3qTK4Lj9vOuSWDZjDFGzNCFdVz4BTieKEr#google_vignette
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/these-countries-have-committed-the-most-aid-to-ukraine
** The UK's contributions aren't anywhere as impressive as governments like to think they are.
If the Greens are still ahead of them it’s not a bad idea tbh, particularly if rejoin continues to have a huge polling lead because there is a legitimate democratic argument for it.
Now of course sport isn’t the same as science and other technology investments. Performance is easy to evaluate and cycles happen every four years. And let’s be honest lots more money went on Olympic sport between 96 and 2018. But I reckon a comparable approach can be taken in other areas. GB got great at the siting down sports (particularly cycling) because they consistently demonstrated results and improvements year on year so they got more and more money.
How the weights assigned to different countries in the GDP synthetic control exercise were chosen appears to me how an automaton might create a comparator for counterfactual analysis. That said, the quite impressive fan-type graphs (© BoE) really don't need the ludicrous comparator to make their points.
* This government press release from yesterday about £50m in defence spending, ends with the possibly true statement that: "The UK is delivering the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, hitting 2.6% of GDP from 2027." It might be true, but as George Robertson says, it falls woefully short of what the moment requires, and it is a perfect example of the corrosive complacency he accuses the government of exhibiting.
Interested from a SINDY perspective.
Better, I can buy into. Say 120% of the growth rate elsewhere.
Double requires an explanation of how. What would be growing like crazy?
If you have a close vote share spread between the five largest parties, then differences in vote distribution can create an outcome where the number of seats are distributed inversely to votes received. Something a bit like:
LDM 20% 104 seats
GRN 19% 112 seats
LAB 18% 96 seats
CON 17% 121 seats
RFM 16% 140 seats
Labour messing the pattern up, of course.
“several ships coming from Iran were able to cross the Strait of Hormuz in the hours before and after the U.S. military blockade, according to the global trade analysis firm Kpler”
“Ship-tracking data also showed a [Guyanese flagged but Chinese owned & operated] tanker that had been placed under sanctions by the United States reversing course near the strait shortly before the blockade but then completing its passage later”
https://bsky.app/profile/jjschroden.bsky.social/post/3mjh3fyoihc2o
Surely cant be right?
How are they ahead of LDs
ED Fans please explain
Watching this process in Montenegro has been rather interesting.
It all looks too optimistic to me given the lack of movement through Hormuz.
Things could have been great.
We are also grappling with many of the same issues that EU nations (particularly Western European) are struggling with. Look at France, for instance.
Great article. Shows how state grants in China are not “additional boost” but intentional hunger games.
Incentivize 500 companies to start. Put money in supply chain to force competition. Dog eat dog until its 1-4 mega corps.
Meanwhile you get whole industrial infrastructure built out and global competitors flooded to death.
https://x.com/andreasklinger/status/2043956641364656586
Defence isn’t a money-spending competition, it’s a capability competition.
In all fairness he’s not the first Orangeman to not like the pope
Gets coat
WSJ: Saudi Arabia is pressing the U.S. to drop its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and return to the negotiating table, fearing President Trump’s move to close it off could lead Iran to escalate and disrupt other important shipping routes, Arab officials said.
The difference is that we have now tried both, so rejoin is not quite as 'wish and a prayer' as leave was.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
One does see that 8% figure being thrown around rather a lot.
But in some senses it doesn't matter. Whether it is 4% or 14% we are still out and a majority of people now think it was a mistake and we will not be rejoining in the next decade at the very least.
But promising it without evidence how, reminds me more of Liz Truss than say, Norman Lamont.
I voted for Remain, not on ideological grounds. But because I thought I Brexit would be cluster fuck. Which it turned out to be.
Can we have some actual evidence of how we get from X to Y, please?
That it’s below $100, is indicative of the market thinking the issues in the Gulf of Arabia will resolve themselves shortly.
If you want to buy a physical barrel full of oil today, it’s closer to $140.
1. Trump does something that will wreck the global economy.
2. Markets panic and fall.
3. Trump TACOs.
4. Massive market relief rally.
5. Profit (made by Trump insiders at the expense of everyone else in the market).
Many market participants might be stupid, and markets might be irrational, but there's only so many times that cycle can be repeated before the market starts pricing in the Trump TACO, and refuses to lose money to Trump insiders by panicking and falling.
There is a strong assumption that, somehow, however humiliating it might be for Trump, or however recalcitrant the Iranians are proving to be, a way will be found to get oil moving again. Paradoxically, the strength of this belief removes the one external influence that Trump reliably reacts to (a collapse in market confidence). This raises the risk that, just as in the roadrunner cartoons, the economy will be well past the edge of the cliff before the market realises that it ought to be falling, and then it will fall a very long way, and not be able to bounceback so well when Trump tries to fix what he has broken.
Brexit was promised to herald a new golden age of world power and prosperity for the British people. The gap between reality and the promises is what has turned people against it. Not an economic report that almost noone in the real world has heard of let alone read. History proved communism a failure, history proved fascism a failure and history has proved Brexit a failure. Not everyone from those groups is ready to accept that fact but it remains a remorseless fact none the less.