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 ?
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 ?
If he does, we know he's not a Martian he's a Trump plant.
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.
To be fair, it takes time to build capability, and you have to spend the money first. So spending more money is the first thing you get to boast about.
But, yes, the press release was also very lacking in any specifics about what the £50m would achieve, and the capability that it would create.
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?..
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”
That's quite a statement from a former Labour cabinet minister, and stands in stark contrast with Labour (and the SNPs) political strategy of building up an ever-growing reservoir of welfare beneficiaries to aid them in their re-election efforts.
It's a massive political conundrum, because removing benefits (and I include the triple-lock) will be an excruciating task for any government to undertake. But what's the alternative? We can't go on like this.
Just look at Scotland ("how to bankrupt a country")
Key Trends in Scottish Welfare (2025–2026):
Disability Benefits Surge: The number of people receiving Adult Disability Payment (ADP) in Scotland rose by 51% between March 2022 and January 2025. Total disability claimants are expected to exceed 1 million by 2030-31.
Devolved Benefit Growth: The Scottish Government has expanded the social security system, with devolved benefits now representing a £1 billion higher cost than the funding provided by the UK government in 2024/25.
Higher Disability Rates: Between 2021 and 2024, the percentage of Scottish adults reporting a disability rose from 19% to 28%, and children from 6% to 12%.
Fiscal Pressure: The growing cost of Scottish social security is expected to lead to a £770 million shortfall in the Scottish budget by 2029/30.
Child Poverty Challenges: Despite higher spending and the introduction of the Scottish Child Payment, over a quarter of a million children remain in poverty, with 53% of children in minority ethnic families affected.
Mental Health Drivers: Approximately three-quarters of children receiving new disability support are claiming due to "mental or behavioural conditions".
(As an aside, Fergus Ewing, a member of the SNP's unofficial royal family, has resigned from the party and is running against the official SNP candidate in Inverness and Nairn, largely owing to his despair at the SNP's economic illiteracy which, quite apart from anything else, ultimately undermines the case for independence, of which he is a lifetime supporter)
One 'interesting' development in the upcoming Senedd elections is that both Plaid and Reform appear to be indicating that they will back a new M4 Newport bypass. While this is a typical shouty policy from Reform with no specific details, Plaid have said that they do not support the previously preferred 'black route' but will look again at one of the previously discarded options - the 'red route'. The previous 'black route' was very damaging environmentally as well as severely restricting Newport Docks - the 'red route' is a way better compromise and I dont understand why it wasnt more seriously considered before.
But this is a 'brave' decision by Plaid as it will not go down well with their potential coalition partners -the Greens. Not sure how Plaid will square this circle.
One 'interesting' development in the upcoming Senedd elections is that both Plaid and Reform appear to be indicating that they will back a new M4 Newport bypass. While this is a typical shouty policy from Reform with no specific details, Plaid have said that they do not support the previously preferred 'black route' but will look again at one of the previously discarded options - the 'red route'. The previous 'black route' was very damaging environmentally as well as severely restricting Newport Docks - the 'red route' is a way better compromise and I dont understand why it wasnt more seriously considered before.
But this is a 'brave' decision by Plaid as it will not go down well with their potential coalition partners -the Greens. Not sure how Plaid will square this circle.
Would that make a Plaid-Labour coalition more likely?
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.
I think the Congressional average is around 15 bods.
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.
There are ways round this. Something like 60% majority at any 1 point in time or 50% consecutive majorities repeated after a few years to show a small but settled majority.
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.
To be fair, it takes time to build capability, and you have to spend the money first. So spending more money is the first thing you get to boast about.
But, yes, the press release was also very lacking in any specifics about what the £50m would achieve, and the capability that it would create.
The press releases on money don’’t appear to be specific about where it’s going, and the press releases on capability, for example the Ukranian drone factory in the UK, seem oddly non-commital on the costs.
It’s becoming more like the US, where military accounting appears to be a think-of-a-number exercise more than anything else.
What’s needed urgently now is mostly ammunition for existing kit, and cheap delivery mechanisms such as drones.
There’s almost no tanks left fighting in Ukraine, because half a dozen cheap drones can now easily blow the turret off old Soviet tanks.
Capability today is also more important than capability tomorrow, so buy stuff off-the-shelf or licence known-good kit from friendly nations. Looking at you, Ajax. When the base vehicles were handbuilt decades ago, you’re never going to be able to standardise them now, a lesson that should have been learned from the Nimrod project a couple of decades ago.
One 'interesting' development in the upcoming Senedd elections is that both Plaid and Reform appear to be indicating that they will back a new M4 Newport bypass. While this is a typical shouty policy from Reform with no specific details, Plaid have said that they do not support the previously preferred 'black route' but will look again at one of the previously discarded options - the 'red route'. The previous 'black route' was very damaging environmentally as well as severely restricting Newport Docks - the 'red route' is a way better compromise and I dont understand why it wasnt more seriously considered before.
But this is a 'brave' decision by Plaid as it will not go down well with their potential coalition partners -the Greens. Not sure how Plaid will square this circle.
I am not sure how any route doesn't go through the middle of the Gwent Levels and destroy the wading bird populations and as I recall it is essentially scuppers every other transport project.
Anyway, as someone who queues into the Brynglas Tunnel two or three times a week, I say go for it, and while you're at it an estuary airport at Magor.
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.
I think the Congressional average is around 15 bods.
Was just looking that up. House Reps have about 15 staff on average, Senators around 25.
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 ?
From an economic POV Canada would be better off in a union with the US. Although they are well integrated owing to USMCA the border still constitutes a significant barrier to trade. With Japan and China it's and to say, the situation there is evolving rapidly, until relatively recently China was massively poorer than Japan and a economic basket case, and their economies are still organised in entirely different ways so economic integration would be difficult.
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
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.
The fact that you view Brexit as being important enough to compare with communism and fascism proves you're still nuts.
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.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
Kemi, the British Peter Magyar? From the New Statesman (Ethan Croft):
This morning, I switched from BBC Radio 4 to BBC Radio 5 Live to hear Kemi Badenoch’s pitch to a broader audience ahead of the local elections. In an interview with Rick Edwards, the Tory leader punched right as she increasingly seeks to cast the Conservatives as the “sensible” right-wingers in British politics.
She also made use of the extraordinary George Robertson intervention today, in which the former Nato secretary general condemned government complacency on defence, as a means of attacking Nigel Farage as unserious. She claimed that Robertson had originally approached Reform with his critique of defence policy but was ignored.
She then went studs up on Viktor Orbán, the defeated right-wing prime minister of Hungary, attacking him as a “populist” who “left Hungary poorer than when he came in”. Badenoch also took the opportunity to lambast Trump’s Christ-posturing in recent days, calling it “preposterous” and “very bizarre”.
After years of consistent support for Trump, she set out her new position on the president: “If he’s saying something that makes sense, you know, we should agree. If he says something that doesn’t make sense, we should disagree.” She admitted the mess in the Strait of Hormuz was “caused by him not having a full plan” and said: “He’s wrong to make childish remarks. He’s wrong to use empty threats on Greenland and so on – all of that’s wrong. What he said about Iran, that’s wrong as well.”
Rather like the man who defeated Orbán, Péter Magyar, Badenoch remains an extraordinarily right-wing leader by the standards of the Conservative Party, but one who thinks her willingness to punch right might attract median voters.
One 'interesting' development in the upcoming Senedd elections is that both Plaid and Reform appear to be indicating that they will back a new M4 Newport bypass. While this is a typical shouty policy from Reform with no specific details, Plaid have said that they do not support the previously preferred 'black route' but will look again at one of the previously discarded options - the 'red route'. The previous 'black route' was very damaging environmentally as well as severely restricting Newport Docks - the 'red route' is a way better compromise and I dont understand why it wasnt more seriously considered before.
But this is a 'brave' decision by Plaid as it will not go down well with their potential coalition partners -the Greens. Not sure how Plaid will square this circle.
I am not sure how any route doesn't go through the middle of the Gwent Levels and destroy the wading bird populations and as I recall it is essentially scuppers every other transport project.
Anyway, as someone who queues into the Brynglas Tunnel two or three times a week, I say go for it, and while you're at it an estuary airport at Magor.
The Brynglas tunnels have been a choke point ever since the second Severn bridge opened in, checks notes, 1996.
A sensible government should have planned to do something about the tunnels three decades ago.
As with Stonehenge it appears than inertia wins the day, at a cost of millions of hours of lost productivity and increased pollution, as the traffic jams continue to get longer.
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
Rejoin is a complete non-starter whilst we have a fair-to-middling chance that Sir Vladimir Farage becomes the next PM.
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
That's the problem. The irony is that, thanks to Mrs Thatcher's obduracy, we had a deal with the EU which worked pretty well for a Euro-sceptic country like the UK. Sadly, that deal will never be available again.
Thanks Fishing for the header. A few counter points: before the GFC the UK was growing materially faster than the rest of the EU on average, so it's not that crazy to imagine that that trend could re-emerge in a world where uncertainty over the UK's place in the EU had been resolved and austerity was behind us. In financial services, for instance, we have seen significant drift of activity out of the UK after Brexit, which has prevented that sector being a major growth driver. On the synthetic GDP approach, the idea of this methodology is to avoid getting into a subjective judgement based exercise, and use an algorithm to select the comparator countries based on similarity in performance pre Brexit. You may not like the approach but it is one that is widely used in this sort of analysis, on a range of topics, to overcome the issue of economics not being an experimental science. You mention a lot of other stuff that was happening at the same time, such as Covid - true, but many of the things you mention also affected other countries, whereas Brexit was UK specific so it's not unreasonable to think it was a significant contributor. My own view is that an 8% of GDP hit may be an overestimate (to be fair to NIESR that is the top of their range, the 6% bottom of their range seems more plausble). Even if it was just 4% that would be around £120bn or close to £2,000 per person. Is that a price worth paying for some notional idea of sovereignty (when in reality we have lost sovereignty as we align with EU rules we have no voice in setting)? Not in my book.
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
Rejoin is a complete non-starter whilst we have a fair-to-middling chance that Sir Vladimir Farage becomes the next PM.
Online Russian name converters suggest that Николай (Nikolay) is a good Russian equivalent to Nigel.
One 'interesting' development in the upcoming Senedd elections is that both Plaid and Reform appear to be indicating that they will back a new M4 Newport bypass. While this is a typical shouty policy from Reform with no specific details, Plaid have said that they do not support the previously preferred 'black route' but will look again at one of the previously discarded options - the 'red route'. The previous 'black route' was very damaging environmentally as well as severely restricting Newport Docks - the 'red route' is a way better compromise and I dont understand why it wasnt more seriously considered before.
But this is a 'brave' decision by Plaid as it will not go down well with their potential coalition partners -the Greens. Not sure how Plaid will square this circle.
I am not sure how any route doesn't go through the middle of the Gwent Levels and destroy the wading bird populations and as I recall it is essentially scuppers every other transport project.
Anyway, as someone who queues into the Brynglas Tunnel two or three times a week, I say go for it, and while you're at it an estuary airport at Magor.
The Brynglas tunnels have been a choke point ever since the second Severn bridge opened in, checks notes, 1996.
A sensible government should have planned to do something about the tunnels three decades ago.
As with Stonehenge it appears than inertia wins the day, at a cost of millions of hours of lost productivity and increased pollution, as the traffic jams continue to get longer.
It took fifteen years to simply dual the Head of the Valleys. And to be fair it's OK, except the speed limit has dropped from 60 to 50. So until well after I hang up my driving trousers, I won't be using the M4 relief road, because it won't have been finished.
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.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
In a complex and interdependent world talk of controlling our own destiny misses the point, IMHO. The question is what is the most effective way of exercising our sovereignty given the constraints we face. To my mind, pooling our sovereignty with 28 broadly like minded European liberal democracies is a more effective strategy than jumping up and down saying look here chaps, listen to us, when we have less than 1% of global population and barely 2% of global GDP.
Thanks Fishing for the header. A few counter points: before the GFC the UK was growing materially faster than the rest of the EU on average, so it's not that crazy to imagine that that trend could re-emerge in a world where uncertainty over the UK's place in the EU had been resolved and austerity was behind us. In financial services, for instance, we have seen significant drift of activity out of the UK after Brexit, which has prevented that sector being a major growth driver. On the synthetic GDP approach, the idea of this methodology is to avoid getting into a subjective judgement based exercise, and use an algorithm to select the comparator countries based on similarity in performance pre Brexit. You may not like the approach but it is one that is widely used in this sort of analysis, on a range of topics, to overcome the issue of economics not being an experimental science. You mention a lot of other stuff that was happening at the same time, such as Covid - true, but many of the things you mention also affected other countries, whereas Brexit was UK specific so it's not unreasonable to think it was a significant contributor. My own view is that an 8% of GDP hit may be an overestimate (to be fair to NIESR that is the top of their range, the 6% bottom of their range seems more plausble). Even if it was just 4% that would be around £120bn or close to £2,000 per person. Is that a price worth paying for some notional idea of sovereignty (when in reality we have lost sovereignty as we align with EU rules we have no voice in setting)? Not in my book.
Pharmaceuticals is another sector undoubtedly affected by Brexit.
The big advantage of the EU (in theory at least) is that it offers a market of similar size and (potentially at least) capital markets of similar size to the US. As you suggest, it appears that pre-Brexit the UK was gaining some of those benefits in a way that much of the rest of Europe wasn't. Now we have the worst of both worlds.
One 'interesting' development in the upcoming Senedd elections is that both Plaid and Reform appear to be indicating that they will back a new M4 Newport bypass. While this is a typical shouty policy from Reform with no specific details, Plaid have said that they do not support the previously preferred 'black route' but will look again at one of the previously discarded options - the 'red route'. The previous 'black route' was very damaging environmentally as well as severely restricting Newport Docks - the 'red route' is a way better compromise and I dont understand why it wasnt more seriously considered before.
But this is a 'brave' decision by Plaid as it will not go down well with their potential coalition partners -the Greens. Not sure how Plaid will square this circle.
I am not sure how any route doesn't go through the middle of the Gwent Levels and destroy the wading bird populations and as I recall it is essentially scuppers every other transport project.
Anyway, as someone who queues into the Brynglas Tunnel two or three times a week, I say go for it, and while you're at it an estuary airport at Magor.
The Brynglas tunnels have been a choke point ever since the second Severn bridge opened in, checks notes, 1996.
A sensible government should have planned to do something about the tunnels three decades ago.
As with Stonehenge it appears than inertia wins the day, at a cost of millions of hours of lost productivity and increased pollution, as the traffic jams continue to get longer.
It took fifteen years to simply dual the Head of the Valleys. And to be fair it's OK, except the speed limit has dropped from 60 to 50. So until well after I hang up my driving trousers, I won't be using the M4 relief road, because it won't have been finished.
I am fuming about the Stonehenge situation. My Dad lives in Shrewton, 4 miles from the site. The village is a rat run for those avoiding the traffic where the A303 goes from dual to single at Stonehenge. Until something is done to continue the dualling of the A303 past the stones this will continue. Its a major Trunk road for pities sake.
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
Rejoin is a complete non-starter whilst we have a fair-to-middling chance that Sir Vladimir Farage becomes the next PM.
Online Russian name converters suggest that Николай (Nikolay) is a good Russian equivalent to Nigel.
As soon as we have a Prime Minister with a genuine Russian first name I am off!
Thanks Fishing for the header. A few counter points: before the GFC the UK was growing materially faster than the rest of the EU on average, so it's not that crazy to imagine that that trend could re-emerge in a world where uncertainty over the UK's place in the EU had been resolved and austerity was behind us. In financial services, for instance, we have seen significant drift of activity out of the UK after Brexit, which has prevented that sector being a major growth driver. On the synthetic GDP approach, the idea of this methodology is to avoid getting into a subjective judgement based exercise, and use an algorithm to select the comparator countries based on similarity in performance pre Brexit. You may not like the approach but it is one that is widely used in this sort of analysis, on a range of topics, to overcome the issue of economics not being an experimental science. You mention a lot of other stuff that was happening at the same time, such as Covid - true, but many of the things you mention also affected other countries, whereas Brexit was UK specific so it's not unreasonable to think it was a significant contributor. My own view is that an 8% of GDP hit may be an overestimate (to be fair to NIESR that is the top of their range, the 6% bottom of their range seems more plausble). Even if it was just 4% that would be around £120bn or close to £2,000 per person. Is that a price worth paying for some notional idea of sovereignty (when in reality we have lost sovereignty as we align with EU rules we have no voice in setting)? Not in my book.
I agree with this and also think the economic damage is neither overwhelming nor the worst part of Brexit. Or rather the economic damage is the consequence of a loss of freedom that came with Brexit, one of which is the freedom to trade.
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
That's the problem. The irony is that, thanks to Mrs Thatcher's obduracy, we had a deal with the EU which worked pretty well for a Euro-sceptic country like the UK. Sadly, that deal will never be available again.
What's really interesting about Zelensky's intervention is that he puts British membership of the EU as a positive thing for the EU, from which it follows that the EU should be willing to make compromises to make future British membership more likely.
I don't see why, in principle, future British membership of the EU ought not to be on terms that were more favourable overall to those that existed when Britain left, and might not involve the EU implementing some reforms before they qualified for Britain to rejoin.
One thing that I think makes British membership of the EU harder to achieve is the idea that Britain would be a supplicant that would have to beg to rejoin. A lot of Remainer crowing about how abject a failure Brexit has been falls into this trap. It's the sort of psychology that would persuade the British public to decide that it liked being out in the cold, thank you very much.
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
That's the problem. The irony is that, thanks to Mrs Thatcher's obduracy, we had a deal with the EU which worked pretty well for a Euro-sceptic country like the UK. Sadly, that deal will never be available again.
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
That's the problem. The irony is that, thanks to Mrs Thatcher's obduracy, we had a deal with the EU which worked pretty well for a Euro-sceptic country like the UK. Sadly, that deal will never be available again.
What's really interesting about Zelensky's intervention is that he puts British membership of the EU as a positive thing for the EU, from which it follows that the EU should be willing to make compromises to make future British membership more likely.
I don't see why, in principle, future British membership of the EU ought not to be on terms that were more favourable overall to those that existed when Britain left, and might not involve the EU implementing some reforms before they qualified for Britain to rejoin.
One thing that I think makes British membership of the EU harder to achieve is the idea that Britain would be a supplicant that would have to beg to rejoin. A lot of Remainer crowing about how abject a failure Brexit has been falls into this trap. It's the sort of psychology that would persuade the British public to decide that it liked being out in the cold, thank you very much.
I agree with that. The whole point about the rejoin argument is that it offers benefits to both parties.
That is the point of the EU - as Mrs Thatcher recognised when she pushed for the single market.
One 'interesting' development in the upcoming Senedd elections is that both Plaid and Reform appear to be indicating that they will back a new M4 Newport bypass. While this is a typical shouty policy from Reform with no specific details, Plaid have said that they do not support the previously preferred 'black route' but will look again at one of the previously discarded options - the 'red route'. The previous 'black route' was very damaging environmentally as well as severely restricting Newport Docks - the 'red route' is a way better compromise and I dont understand why it wasnt more seriously considered before.
But this is a 'brave' decision by Plaid as it will not go down well with their potential coalition partners -the Greens. Not sure how Plaid will square this circle.
I am not sure how any route doesn't go through the middle of the Gwent Levels and destroy the wading bird populations and as I recall it is essentially scuppers every other transport project.
Anyway, as someone who queues into the Brynglas Tunnel two or three times a week, I say go for it, and while you're at it an estuary airport at Magor.
The big difference is taking the route along the north of Newport Docks rather than cutting across them to the south. This pulls the route further north through more brownfield industrial areas - and much less through greenfield area. You cant build a motorway without doing some environmental damage...but there have always been better options than the one selected.
As a former Remainer, the thing I'm most disappointed with about Brexit, is that nearly 10 years on from the referendum, there has been no articulation from its supporters of anything significant that we can do now we're out that we couldn't before. I don't think we can argue that Brexit is a failure yet, because it hasn't been tried. Where was the bold vision? The Brexiteers had their government for 5 years and did nothing with it, even now Farage can't say what he'd do differently. And now we have a government that doesn't believe in Brexit having to make the best of it, which means bobbing along gradually getting closer but having no real say over anything (see: marmalade).
I don't want to Rejoin until there is widespread acceptance across the political spectrum that our interests are best served by going in on the same terms as everyone, full fat Euro and Schengen and whatever else is on the table by then. And then embrace it and drive it forwards. None of this half-hearted stuff. Until then, stay out, and do Brexit properly and see if it works.
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 ?
From an economic POV Canada would be better off in a union with the US. Although they are well integrated owing to USMCA the border still constitutes a significant barrier to trade. With Japan and China it's and to say, the situation there is evolving rapidly, until relatively recently China was massively poorer than Japan and a economic basket case, and their economies are still organised in entirely different ways so economic integration would be difficult.
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
Rejoin is a complete non-starter whilst we have a fair-to-middling chance that Sir Vladimir Farage becomes the next PM.
Farage has been almost the dog in the night time post-Brexit. Apart from occasionally deprecating Boris's deal in very vague terms, and accusing Starmer of planning to betray the spirit of the referendum, has he said anything of note?
As a former Remainer, the thing I'm most disappointed with about Brexit, is that nearly 10 years on from the referendum, there has been no articulation from its supporters of anything significant that we can do now we're out that we couldn't before. I don't think we can argue that Brexit is a failure yet, because it hasn't been tried. Where was the bold vision? The Brexiteers had their government for 5 years and did nothing with it, even now Farage can't say what he'd do differently. And now we have a government that doesn't believe in Brexit having to make the best of it, which means bobbing along gradually getting closer but having no real say over anything (see: marmalade).
I don't want to Rejoin until there is widespread acceptance across the political spectrum that our interests are best served by going in on the same terms as everyone, full fat Euro and Schengen and whatever else is on the table by then. And then embrace it and drive it forwards. None of this half-hearted stuff. Until then, stay out, and do Brexit properly and see if it works.
AI regulation.
If it really is the 4th industrial revolution or perhaps even more than that then being able to move without all the EU's precautionary principle rules might be a huge advantage.
As a former Remainer, the thing I'm most disappointed with about Brexit, is that nearly 10 years on from the referendum, there has been no articulation from its supporters of anything significant that we can do now we're out that we couldn't before. I don't think we can argue that Brexit is a failure yet, because it hasn't been tried. Where was the bold vision? The Brexiteers had their government for 5 years and did nothing with it, even now Farage can't say what he'd do differently. And now we have a government that doesn't believe in Brexit having to make the best of it, which means bobbing along gradually getting closer but having no real say over anything (see: marmalade).
I don't want to Rejoin until there is widespread acceptance across the political spectrum that our interests are best served by going in on the same terms as everyone, full fat Euro and Schengen and whatever else is on the table by then. And then embrace it and drive it forwards. None of this half-hearted stuff. Until then, stay out, and do Brexit properly and see if it works.
We can kick out any bastards who pass a law we dislike and get it changed.
As a former Remainer, the thing I'm most disappointed with about Brexit, is that nearly 10 years on from the referendum, there has been no articulation from its supporters of anything significant that we can do now we're out that we couldn't before. I don't think we can argue that Brexit is a failure yet, because it hasn't been tried. Where was the bold vision? The Brexiteers had their government for 5 years and did nothing with it, even now Farage can't say what he'd do differently. And now we have a government that doesn't believe in Brexit having to make the best of it, which means bobbing along gradually getting closer but having no real say over anything (see: marmalade).
I don't want to Rejoin until there is widespread acceptance across the political spectrum that our interests are best served by going in on the same terms as everyone, full fat Euro and Schengen and whatever else is on the table by then. And then embrace it and drive it forwards. None of this half-hearted stuff. Until then, stay out, and do Brexit properly and see if it works.
AI regulation.
If it really is the 4th industrial revolution or perhaps even more than that then being able to move without all the EU's precautionary principle rules might be a huge advantage.
So when we all get killed by the AI robots, at least they will be OUR killer AI robots?
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
Rejoin is a complete non-starter whilst we have a fair-to-middling chance that Sir Vladimir Farage becomes the next PM.
Farage has been almost the dog in the night time post-Brexit. Apart from occasionally deprecating Boris's deal in very vague terms, and accusing Starmer of planning to betray the spirit of the referendum, has he said anything of note?
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
Rejoin is a complete non-starter whilst we have a fair-to-middling chance that Sir Vladimir Farage becomes the next PM.
Farage has been almost the dog in the night time post-Brexit. Apart from occasionally deprecating Boris's deal in very vague terms, and accusing Starmer of planning to betray the spirit of the referendum, has he said anything of note?
Kemi, the British Peter Magyar? From the New Statesman (Ethan Croft):
This morning, I switched from BBC Radio 4 to BBC Radio 5 Live to hear Kemi Badenoch’s pitch to a broader audience ahead of the local elections. In an interview with Rick Edwards, the Tory leader punched right as she increasingly seeks to cast the Conservatives as the “sensible” right-wingers in British politics.
She also made use of the extraordinary George Robertson intervention today, in which the former Nato secretary general condemned government complacency on defence, as a means of attacking Nigel Farage as unserious. She claimed that Robertson had originally approached Reform with his critique of defence policy but was ignored.
She then went studs up on Viktor Orbán, the defeated right-wing prime minister of Hungary, attacking him as a “populist” who “left Hungary poorer than when he came in”. Badenoch also took the opportunity to lambast Trump’s Christ-posturing in recent days, calling it “preposterous” and “very bizarre”.
After years of consistent support for Trump, she set out her new position on the president: “If he’s saying something that makes sense, you know, we should agree. If he says something that doesn’t make sense, we should disagree.” She admitted the mess in the Strait of Hormuz was “caused by him not having a full plan” and said: “He’s wrong to make childish remarks. He’s wrong to use empty threats on Greenland and so on – all of that’s wrong. What he said about Iran, that’s wrong as well.”
Rather like the man who defeated Orbán, Péter Magyar, Badenoch remains an extraordinarily right-wing leader by the standards of the Conservative Party, but one who thinks her willingness to punch right might attract median voters.
If only she was in government, she would have been able to do this rather than pontificate.
As a former Remainer, the thing I'm most disappointed with about Brexit, is that nearly 10 years on from the referendum, there has been no articulation from its supporters of anything significant that we can do now we're out that we couldn't before. I don't think we can argue that Brexit is a failure yet, because it hasn't been tried. Where was the bold vision? The Brexiteers had their government for 5 years and did nothing with it, even now Farage can't say what he'd do differently. And now we have a government that doesn't believe in Brexit having to make the best of it, which means bobbing along gradually getting closer but having no real say over anything (see: marmalade).
I don't want to Rejoin until there is widespread acceptance across the political spectrum that our interests are best served by going in on the same terms as everyone, full fat Euro and Schengen and whatever else is on the table by then. And then embrace it and drive it forwards. None of this half-hearted stuff. Until then, stay out, and do Brexit properly and see if it works.
AI regulation.
If it really is the 4th industrial revolution or perhaps even more than that then being able to move without all the EU's precautionary principle rules might be a huge advantage.
I'm sure there are many other things like that too where we could take advantage of setting our own rules. But is anyone actively pushing things like this? (Maybe they are but I'm unaware).
As a former Remainer, the thing I'm most disappointed with about Brexit, is that nearly 10 years on from the referendum, there has been no articulation from its supporters of anything significant that we can do now we're out that we couldn't before. I don't think we can argue that Brexit is a failure yet, because it hasn't been tried. Where was the bold vision? The Brexiteers had their government for 5 years and did nothing with it, even now Farage can't say what he'd do differently. And now we have a government that doesn't believe in Brexit having to make the best of it, which means bobbing along gradually getting closer but having no real say over anything (see: marmalade).
I don't want to Rejoin until there is widespread acceptance across the political spectrum that our interests are best served by going in on the same terms as everyone, full fat Euro and Schengen and whatever else is on the table by then. And then embrace it and drive it forwards. None of this half-hearted stuff. Until then, stay out, and do Brexit properly and see if it works.
AI regulation.
If it really is the 4th industrial revolution or perhaps even more than that then being able to move without all the EU's precautionary principle rules might be a huge advantage.
Yes, the biggest opportunities are not being around future EU regulation, AI being the obvious example, alongside what’s little more than vexatious litigation targeting US-headquartered tech companies.
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.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
In a complex and interdependent world talk of controlling our own destiny misses the point, IMHO. The question is what is the most effective way of exercising our sovereignty given the constraints we face. To my mind, pooling our sovereignty with 28 broadly like minded European liberal democracies is a more effective strategy than jumping up and down saying look here chaps, listen to us, when we have less than 1% of global population and barely 2% of global GDP.
I could not disagree with you more.
2% of global GDP is a hell of a lot, not a tiny amount.
The point is not that we should do x, y, or z with our sovereignty, but that we can debate x, y and z and vote every few years to change course.
Pooling sovereignty would make sense if you want a country called Europe and a demos of European citizens determining laws at European elections, but that has not turned out and people adamantly claim that is not what they want.
To pool sovereignty but to not have an effective electoral debate over it that can change course on a regular basis is profoundly undemocratic.
As a former Remainer, the thing I'm most disappointed with about Brexit, is that nearly 10 years on from the referendum, there has been no articulation from its supporters of anything significant that we can do now we're out that we couldn't before. I don't think we can argue that Brexit is a failure yet, because it hasn't been tried. Where was the bold vision? The Brexiteers had their government for 5 years and did nothing with it, even now Farage can't say what he'd do differently. And now we have a government that doesn't believe in Brexit having to make the best of it, which means bobbing along gradually getting closer but having no real say over anything (see: marmalade).
I don't want to Rejoin until there is widespread acceptance across the political spectrum that our interests are best served by going in on the same terms as everyone, full fat Euro and Schengen and whatever else is on the table by then. And then embrace it and drive it forwards. None of this half-hearted stuff. Until then, stay out, and do Brexit properly and see if it works.
AI regulation.
If it really is the 4th industrial revolution or perhaps even more than that then being able to move without all the EU's precautionary principle rules might be a huge advantage.
Yes, the biggest opportunities are not being around future EU regulation, AI being the obvious example, alongside what’s little more than vexatious litigation targeting US-headquartered tech companies.
Artificial meat and other synth-bio-food is another one that Telegraph's AEP has been highlighting.
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.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
Choosing to force ourselves to have less of what we want is a strange sovereignty, but it was a choice so sovereignty.
As a former Remainer, the thing I'm most disappointed with about Brexit, is that nearly 10 years on from the referendum, there has been no articulation from its supporters of anything significant that we can do now we're out that we couldn't before. I don't think we can argue that Brexit is a failure yet, because it hasn't been tried. Where was the bold vision? The Brexiteers had their government for 5 years and did nothing with it, even now Farage can't say what he'd do differently. And now we have a government that doesn't believe in Brexit having to make the best of it, which means bobbing along gradually getting closer but having no real say over anything (see: marmalade).
I don't want to Rejoin until there is widespread acceptance across the political spectrum that our interests are best served by going in on the same terms as everyone, full fat Euro and Schengen and whatever else is on the table by then. And then embrace it and drive it forwards. None of this half-hearted stuff. Until then, stay out, and do Brexit properly and see if it works.
AI regulation.
If it really is the 4th industrial revolution or perhaps even more than that then being able to move without all the EU's precautionary principle rules might be a huge advantage.
I'm sure there are many other things like that too where we could take advantage of setting our own rules. But is anyone actively pushing things like this? (Maybe they are but I'm unaware).
The EU themselves are pushing AI restrictions and compliance hard. UK is in a much better position for being nowhere near it.
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.
Great post. This is where I fear we may well be soon and I have taken appropriate defensive action with my own investments.
There have been repeated economic shocks wrought by Trump’s erratic and damaging decisions. Which have led to market panics and then rebounds as the next TACO gets announced. But surely the TACOs don’t undo all the damage - they just steady the ship ready for repairs. Before the next shot in the foot.
So why is the overall market position still so high - as though nothing damaging has been happening at all. It makes no sense to me. Global share prices indexes have been increasing for years and arguably would be due a significant downward correction some time soon even without all this self harming behaviour. It makes no sense to me.
Be brave when others are fearful etc. Well I’m fearful for the market - but no longer for my own position. Good luck to the brave!
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
Rejoin is a complete non-starter whilst we have a fair-to-middling chance that Sir Vladimir Farage becomes the next PM.
Farage has been almost the dog in the night time post-Brexit. Apart from occasionally deprecating Boris's deal in very vague terms, and accusing Starmer of planning to betray the spirit of the referendum, has he said anything of note?
The fact the main architect of Brexit is keeping very quiet about it tells you all need know about just how successful it has been .
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.
Great post. This is where I fear we may well be soon and I have taken appropriate defensive action with my own investments.
There have been repeated economic shocks wrought by Trump’s erratic and damaging decisions. Which have led to market panics and then rebounds as the next TACO gets announced. But surely the TACOs don’t undo all the damage - they just steady the ship ready for repairs. Before the next shot in the foot.
So why is the overall market position still so high - as though nothing damaging has been happening at all. It makes no sense to me. Global share prices indexes have been increasing for years and arguably would be due a significant downward correction some time soon even without all this self harming behaviour. It makes no sense to me.
Be brave when others are fearful etc. Well I’m fearful for the market - but no longer for my own position. Good luck to the brave!
Is Farage's £2 million bitcoin purchase a punt on where soon-to-be trillionaire Elon Musk will invest his slice of the SpaceX IPO?
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.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
In a complex and interdependent world talk of controlling our own destiny misses the point, IMHO. The question is what is the most effective way of exercising our sovereignty given the constraints we face. To my mind, pooling our sovereignty with 28 broadly like minded European liberal democracies is a more effective strategy than jumping up and down saying look here chaps, listen to us, when we have less than 1% of global population and barely 2% of global GDP.
I could not disagree with you more.
2% of global GDP is a hell of a lot, not a tiny amount.
The point is not that we should do x, y, or z with our sovereignty, but that we can debate x, y and z and vote every few years to change course.
Pooling sovereignty would make sense if you want a country called Europe and a demos of European citizens determining laws at European elections, but that has not turned out and people adamantly claim that is not what they want.
To pool sovereignty but to not have an effective electoral debate over it that can change course on a regular basis is profoundly undemocratic.
You have backed pooling our sovereignty via US air bases in the UK.
Kemi, the British Peter Magyar? From the New Statesman (Ethan Croft):
This morning, I switched from BBC Radio 4 to BBC Radio 5 Live to hear Kemi Badenoch’s pitch to a broader audience ahead of the local elections. In an interview with Rick Edwards, the Tory leader punched right as she increasingly seeks to cast the Conservatives as the “sensible” right-wingers in British politics.
She also made use of the extraordinary George Robertson intervention today, in which the former Nato secretary general condemned government complacency on defence, as a means of attacking Nigel Farage as unserious. She claimed that Robertson had originally approached Reform with his critique of defence policy but was ignored.
She then went studs up on Viktor Orbán, the defeated right-wing prime minister of Hungary, attacking him as a “populist” who “left Hungary poorer than when he came in”. Badenoch also took the opportunity to lambast Trump’s Christ-posturing in recent days, calling it “preposterous” and “very bizarre”.
After years of consistent support for Trump, she set out her new position on the president: “If he’s saying something that makes sense, you know, we should agree. If he says something that doesn’t make sense, we should disagree.” She admitted the mess in the Strait of Hormuz was “caused by him not having a full plan” and said: “He’s wrong to make childish remarks. He’s wrong to use empty threats on Greenland and so on – all of that’s wrong. What he said about Iran, that’s wrong as well.”
Rather like the man who defeated Orbán, Péter Magyar, Badenoch remains an extraordinarily right-wing leader by the standards of the Conservative Party, but one who thinks her willingness to punch right might attract median voters.
It doesn't, because we know she'll need to pitch much further right to regain lost voters to Reform.
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.
Great post. This is where I fear we may well be soon and I have taken appropriate defensive action with my own investments.
There have been repeated economic shocks wrought by Trump’s erratic and damaging decisions. Which have led to market panics and then rebounds as the next TACO gets announced. But surely the TACOs don’t undo all the damage - they just steady the ship ready for repairs. Before the next shot in the foot.
So why is the overall market position still so high - as though nothing damaging has been happening at all. It makes no sense to me. Global share prices indexes have been increasing for years and arguably would be due a significant downward correction some time soon even without all this self harming behaviour. It makes no sense to me.
Be brave when others are fearful etc. Well I’m fearful for the market - but no longer for my own position. Good luck to the brave!
The rich are getting richer faster than ever and need somewhere to put their very significant excess income. Where should they put it if not equities? Unproductive assets like gold? US treasuries when their period of hegemony is ending? Property when democracies all over are clamping down on landlordism? Bitcoin and friends?
Cash and accept long term devaluation? Perhaps that is the answer but historically it has not been.
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.
We were in
Now we're out
People have a preference for in
I don't think that's wholly true either. Rejoin with the old terms is what is in peoples minds. What would be on offer may dissappoint.
Rejoin is a complete non-starter whilst we have a fair-to-middling chance that Sir Vladimir Farage becomes the next PM.
Farage has been almost the dog in the night time post-Brexit. Apart from occasionally deprecating Boris's deal in very vague terms, and accusing Starmer of planning to betray the spirit of the referendum, has he said anything of note?
The fact the main architect of Brexit is keeping very quiet about it tells you all need know about just how successful it has been .
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.
To be fair, it takes time to build capability, and you have to spend the money first. So spending more money is the first thing you get to boast about.
But, yes, the press release was also very lacking in any specifics about what the £50m would achieve, and the capability that it would create.
The press releases on money don’’t appear to be specific about where it’s going, and the press releases on capability, for example the Ukranian drone factory in the UK, seem oddly non-commital on the costs.
It’s becoming more like the US, where military accounting appears to be a think-of-a-number exercise more than anything else.
What’s needed urgently now is mostly ammunition for existing kit, and cheap delivery mechanisms such as drones.
There’s almost no tanks left fighting in Ukraine, because half a dozen cheap drones can now easily blow the turret off old Soviet tanks.
Capability today is also more important than capability tomorrow, so buy stuff off-the-shelf or licence known-good kit from friendly nations. Looking at you, Ajax. When the base vehicles were handbuilt decades ago, you’re never going to be able to standardise them now, a lesson that should have been learned from the Nimrod project a couple of decades ago.
One slight upside, ISTM, is that had we been spending on defence at a reasonable level we'd now have lots of obsolete kit. Perhaps the direness of the situation will concentrate minds about what is really needed now.
Kemi, the British Peter Magyar? From the New Statesman (Ethan Croft):
This morning, I switched from BBC Radio 4 to BBC Radio 5 Live to hear Kemi Badenoch’s pitch to a broader audience ahead of the local elections. In an interview with Rick Edwards, the Tory leader punched right as she increasingly seeks to cast the Conservatives as the “sensible” right-wingers in British politics.
She also made use of the extraordinary George Robertson intervention today, in which the former Nato secretary general condemned government complacency on defence, as a means of attacking Nigel Farage as unserious. She claimed that Robertson had originally approached Reform with his critique of defence policy but was ignored.
She then went studs up on Viktor Orbán, the defeated right-wing prime minister of Hungary, attacking him as a “populist” who “left Hungary poorer than when he came in”. Badenoch also took the opportunity to lambast Trump’s Christ-posturing in recent days, calling it “preposterous” and “very bizarre”.
After years of consistent support for Trump, she set out her new position on the president: “If he’s saying something that makes sense, you know, we should agree. If he says something that doesn’t make sense, we should disagree.” She admitted the mess in the Strait of Hormuz was “caused by him not having a full plan” and said: “He’s wrong to make childish remarks. He’s wrong to use empty threats on Greenland and so on – all of that’s wrong. What he said about Iran, that’s wrong as well.”
Rather like the man who defeated Orbán, Péter Magyar, Badenoch remains an extraordinarily right-wing leader by the standards of the Conservative Party, but one who thinks her willingness to punch right might attract median voters.
It doesn't, because we know she'll need to pitch much further right to regain lost voters to Reform.
It is tactical votes from Labour and the LDs in Conservative held seats she needs, she won't regain voters lost to Reform
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.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
In a complex and interdependent world talk of controlling our own destiny misses the point, IMHO. The question is what is the most effective way of exercising our sovereignty given the constraints we face. To my mind, pooling our sovereignty with 28 broadly like minded European liberal democracies is a more effective strategy than jumping up and down saying look here chaps, listen to us, when we have less than 1% of global population and barely 2% of global GDP.
I could not disagree with you more.
2% of global GDP is a hell of a lot, not a tiny amount.
The point is not that we should do x, y, or z with our sovereignty, but that we can debate x, y and z and vote every few years to change course.
Pooling sovereignty would make sense if you want a country called Europe and a demos of European citizens determining laws at European elections, but that has not turned out and people adamantly claim that is not what they want.
To pool sovereignty but to not have an effective electoral debate over it that can change course on a regular basis is profoundly undemocratic.
You have backed pooling our sovereignty via US air bases in the UK.
I think that was more just surrendering sovereignty rather than pooling it.
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.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
In a complex and interdependent world talk of controlling our own destiny misses the point, IMHO. The question is what is the most effective way of exercising our sovereignty given the constraints we face. To my mind, pooling our sovereignty with 28 broadly like minded European liberal democracies is a more effective strategy than jumping up and down saying look here chaps, listen to us, when we have less than 1% of global population and barely 2% of global GDP.
I could not disagree with you more.
2% of global GDP is a hell of a lot, not a tiny amount.
The point is not that we should do x, y, or z with our sovereignty, but that we can debate x, y and z and vote every few years to change course.
Pooling sovereignty would make sense if you want a country called Europe and a demos of European citizens determining laws at European elections, but that has not turned out and people adamantly claim that is not what they want.
To pool sovereignty but to not have an effective electoral debate over it that can change course on a regular basis is profoundly undemocratic.
You have backed pooling our sovereignty via US air bases in the UK.
As has been the policy of elected governments. If we vote to tell the Americans to feck off, then that is what we should do.
In the EU there was no demos to debate or vote on matters. That is undemocratic.
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.
Great post. This is where I fear we may well be soon and I have taken appropriate defensive action with my own investments.
There have been repeated economic shocks wrought by Trump’s erratic and damaging decisions. Which have led to market panics and then rebounds as the next TACO gets announced. But surely the TACOs don’t undo all the damage - they just steady the ship ready for repairs. Before the next shot in the foot.
So why is the overall market position still so high - as though nothing damaging has been happening at all. It makes no sense to me. Global share prices indexes have been increasing for years and arguably would be due a significant downward correction some time soon even without all this self harming behaviour. It makes no sense to me.
Be brave when others are fearful etc. Well I’m fearful for the market - but no longer for my own position. Good luck to the brave!
The rich are getting richer faster than ever and need somewhere to put their very significant excess income. Where should they put it if not equities? Unproductive assets like gold? US treasuries when their period of hegemony is ending? Property when democracies all over are clamping down on landlordism? Bitcoin and friends?
Cash and accept long term devaluation? Perhaps that is the answer but historically it has not been.
It has to go somewhere and nowhere looks great.
I know timing the market is always advised against and it’s not something I would normally do. But I think there is a high likelihood of a significant downward market correction in the short term. At my age, (not ancient - 65) I would rather miss 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.
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.
To be fair, it takes time to build capability, and you have to spend the money first. So spending more money is the first thing you get to boast about.
But, yes, the press release was also very lacking in any specifics about what the £50m would achieve, and the capability that it would create.
The press releases on money don’’t appear to be specific about where it’s going, and the press releases on capability, for example the Ukranian drone factory in the UK, seem oddly non-commital on the costs.
It’s becoming more like the US, where military accounting appears to be a think-of-a-number exercise more than anything else.
What’s needed urgently now is mostly ammunition for existing kit, and cheap delivery mechanisms such as drones.
There’s almost no tanks left fighting in Ukraine, because half a dozen cheap drones can now easily blow the turret off old Soviet tanks.
Capability today is also more important than capability tomorrow, so buy stuff off-the-shelf or licence known-good kit from friendly nations. Looking at you, Ajax. When the base vehicles were handbuilt decades ago, you’re never going to be able to standardise them now, a lesson that should have been learned from the Nimrod project a couple of decades ago.
One slight upside, ISTM, is that had we been spending on defence at a reasonable level we'd now have lots of obsolete kit. Perhaps the direness of the situation will concentrate minds about what is really needed now.
Wars against peer adversaries tend to prove that most existing kit is obsolete, and gets replaced by better stuff as it is worked out what is needed and what works. What the existing kit achieved is that it keeps you in the fight while you work that out.
Britain has a shortage of soldiers (and pilots and sailors), of equipment for those soldiers and ammunition for that equipment. Britain would be knocked out of a war against a peer adversary within about two weeks (when we'd run out of ammunition) at most. There wouldn't be the time to learn what was needed more of.
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.
Great post. This is where I fear we may well be soon and I have taken appropriate defensive action with my own investments.
There have been repeated economic shocks wrought by Trump’s erratic and damaging decisions. Which have led to market panics and then rebounds as the next TACO gets announced. But surely the TACOs don’t undo all the damage - they just steady the ship ready for repairs. Before the next shot in the foot.
So why is the overall market position still so high - as though nothing damaging has been happening at all. It makes no sense to me. Global share prices indexes have been increasing for years and arguably would be due a significant downward correction some time soon even without all this self harming behaviour. It makes no sense to me.
Be brave when others are fearful etc. Well I’m fearful for the market - but no longer for my own position. Good luck to the brave!
The rich are getting richer faster than ever and need somewhere to put their very significant excess income. Where should they put it if not equities? Unproductive assets like gold? US treasuries when their period of hegemony is ending? Property when democracies all over are clamping down on landlordism? Bitcoin and friends?
Cash and accept long term devaluation? Perhaps that is the answer but historically it has not been.
It has to go somewhere and nowhere looks great.
I know timing the market is always advised against and it’s not something I would normally do. But I think there is a high likelihood of a significant downward market correction in the short term. At my age, (not ancient - 65) I would rather miss it!
I don't particularly disagree with you, but the reason equities are still rising is the rate at which the ultra rich are accumulating capital they can't spend so need to invest (somewhere, anywhere). Governments aren't tackling that, indeed some of the biggest are now run by and for the ultra rich, so that seems to be the medium term direction of travel.
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.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
In a complex and interdependent world talk of controlling our own destiny misses the point, IMHO. The question is what is the most effective way of exercising our sovereignty given the constraints we face. To my mind, pooling our sovereignty with 28 broadly like minded European liberal democracies is a more effective strategy than jumping up and down saying look here chaps, listen to us, when we have less than 1% of global population and barely 2% of global GDP.
I could not disagree with you more.
2% of global GDP is a hell of a lot, not a tiny amount.
The point is not that we should do x, y, or z with our sovereignty, but that we can debate x, y and z and vote every few years to change course.
Pooling sovereignty would make sense if you want a country called Europe and a demos of European citizens determining laws at European elections, but that has not turned out and people adamantly claim that is not what they want.
To pool sovereignty but to not have an effective electoral debate over it that can change course on a regular basis is profoundly undemocratic.
You have backed pooling our sovereignty via US air bases in the UK.
As has been the policy of elected governments. If we vote to tell the Americans to feck off, then that is what we should do.
In the EU there was no demos to debate or vote on matters. That is undemocratic.
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.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
In a complex and interdependent world talk of controlling our own destiny misses the point, IMHO. The question is what is the most effective way of exercising our sovereignty given the constraints we face. To my mind, pooling our sovereignty with 28 broadly like minded European liberal democracies is a more effective strategy than jumping up and down saying look here chaps, listen to us, when we have less than 1% of global population and barely 2% of global GDP.
I could not disagree with you more.
2% of global GDP is a hell of a lot, not a tiny amount.
The point is not that we should do x, y, or z with our sovereignty, but that we can debate x, y and z and vote every few years to change course.
Pooling sovereignty would make sense if you want a country called Europe and a demos of European citizens determining laws at European elections, but that has not turned out and people adamantly claim that is not what they want.
To pool sovereignty but to not have an effective electoral debate over it that can change course on a regular basis is profoundly undemocratic.
You have backed pooling our sovereignty via US air bases in the UK.
As has been the policy of elected governments. If we vote to tell the Americans to feck off, then that is what we should do.
In the EU there was no demos to debate or vote on matters. That is undemocratic.
There was the EU Parliament
Which does not really have much power or control over the EU or a demos debating the issues.
Labour MP @SamanthaNiblet4 has launched a campaign to make 2026 the “summer of sex”, calling for a more open and inclusive approach to lifelong sex ed
This is the sort of optimism Labour needs.
I've just read the article. she wants to see education used "as the biggest tool."
Probably needed. I saw a YouTube short earlier by a pregnant transman who couldn't understand how he got pregnant since he's now a man (living with a male partner).
He said he had “absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing”, saying of the affair: “I made a mistake – I had a lapse in judgment and it was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions … Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife, Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has, and my faith is as strong as ever.”
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.
For the 94th time Brexit hasn't failed. We left the EU. We now control our own destiny. The political debates about sovereignty are no more. Brexit was never only about the best economic path for the country.
In a complex and interdependent world talk of controlling our own destiny misses the point, IMHO. The question is what is the most effective way of exercising our sovereignty given the constraints we face. To my mind, pooling our sovereignty with 28 broadly like minded European liberal democracies is a more effective strategy than jumping up and down saying look here chaps, listen to us, when we have less than 1% of global population and barely 2% of global GDP.
I could not disagree with you more.
2% of global GDP is a hell of a lot, not a tiny amount.
The point is not that we should do x, y, or z with our sovereignty, but that we can debate x, y and z and vote every few years to change course.
Pooling sovereignty would make sense if you want a country called Europe and a demos of European citizens determining laws at European elections, but that has not turned out and people adamantly claim that is not what they want.
To pool sovereignty but to not have an effective electoral debate over it that can change course on a regular basis is profoundly undemocratic.
You have backed pooling our sovereignty via US air bases in the UK.
As has been the policy of elected governments. If we vote to tell the Americans to feck off, then that is what we should do.
In the EU there was no demos to debate or vote on matters. That is undemocratic.
There was the EU Parliament
It doesn't do much. There was no way to vote for a new EU "government" and indeed no way of voting for different policies to be applied.
Labour MP @SamanthaNiblet4 has launched a campaign to make 2026 the “summer of sex”, calling for a more open and inclusive approach to lifelong sex ed
This is the sort of optimism Labour needs.
I've just read the article. she wants to see education used "as the biggest tool."
Probably needed. I saw a YouTube short earlier by a pregnant transman who couldn't understand how he got pregnant since he's now a man (living with a male partner).
You'd think getting pregnant would cause overwhelming mental distress from dysphoria.
He said he had “absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing”, saying of the affair: “I made a mistake – I had a lapse in judgment and it was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions … Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife, Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has, and my faith is as strong as ever.”
Zelensky is in Germany today. One of the announcements by his host, Merz, is that they're going to work together to limit asylum in Germany for Ukrainian men. I wonder how quickly and widely this will be adopted across Europe?
Labour MP @SamanthaNiblet4 has launched a campaign to make 2026 the “summer of sex”, calling for a more open and inclusive approach to lifelong sex ed
This is the sort of optimism Labour needs.
I've just read the article. she wants to see education used "as the biggest tool."
Probably needed. I saw a YouTube short earlier by a pregnant transman who couldn't understand how he got pregnant since he's now a man (living with a male partner).
You'd think getting pregnant would cause overwhelming mental distress from dysphoria.
Sex education but they've just banned pretend stepmoms.
He said he had “absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing”, saying of the affair: “I made a mistake – I had a lapse in judgment and it was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions … Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife, Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has, and my faith is as strong as ever.”
That's a very convenient relationship he has with God.
And unless God has been doing that burning bush / wall writing in Gonzalez's district it looks like a very presumptive relationship he has with God.
I thought the core teaching of Christianity is that you only have to ask in order to be forgiven by God?
'Core teachings' of any religious thing is dangerous ground, and angels fear to tread, but the description 'you only have to ask and....' while familiar is also transactional. Whereas the traditional model is non transactional but entirely one sided: the meaning of Good Friday is that there is nothing additional God has to do to forgive you. Already done. This is so scandalous that people will go to almost any lengths to avoid its implications.
Labour MP @SamanthaNiblet4 has launched a campaign to make 2026 the “summer of sex”, calling for a more open and inclusive approach to lifelong sex ed
This is the sort of optimism Labour needs.
I've just read the article. she wants to see education used "as the biggest tool."
Probably needed. I saw a YouTube short earlier by a pregnant transman who couldn't understand how he got pregnant since he's now a man (living with a male partner).
You'd think getting pregnant would cause overwhelming mental distress from dysphoria.
Sex education but they've just banned pretend stepmoms.
Comments
Shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
But, yes, the press release was also very lacking in any specifics about what the £50m would achieve, and the capability that it would create.
That's quite a statement from a former Labour cabinet minister, and stands in stark contrast with Labour (and the SNPs) political strategy of building up an ever-growing reservoir of welfare beneficiaries to aid them in their re-election efforts.
It's a massive political conundrum, because removing benefits (and I include the triple-lock) will be an excruciating task for any government to undertake. But what's the alternative? We can't go on like this.
Just look at Scotland ("how to bankrupt a country")
Key Trends in Scottish Welfare (2025–2026):
Disability Benefits Surge: The number of people receiving Adult Disability Payment (ADP) in Scotland rose by 51% between March 2022 and January 2025. Total disability claimants are expected to exceed 1 million by 2030-31.
Devolved Benefit Growth: The Scottish Government has expanded the social security system, with devolved benefits now representing a £1 billion higher cost than the funding provided by the UK government in 2024/25.
Higher Disability Rates: Between 2021 and 2024, the percentage of Scottish adults reporting a disability rose from 19% to 28%, and children from 6% to 12%.
Fiscal Pressure: The growing cost of Scottish social security is expected to lead to a £770 million shortfall in the Scottish budget by 2029/30.
Child Poverty Challenges: Despite higher spending and the introduction of the Scottish Child Payment, over a quarter of a million children remain in poverty, with 53% of children in minority ethnic families affected.
Mental Health Drivers: Approximately three-quarters of children receiving new disability support are claiming due to "mental or behavioural conditions".
(As an aside, Fergus Ewing, a member of the SNP's unofficial royal family, has resigned from the party and is running against the official SNP candidate in Inverness and Nairn, largely owing to his despair at the SNP's economic illiteracy which, quite apart from anything else, ultimately undermines the case for independence, of which he is a lifetime supporter)
But this is a 'brave' decision by Plaid as it will not go down well with their potential coalition partners -the Greens. Not sure how Plaid will square this circle.
It’s becoming more like the US, where military accounting appears to be a think-of-a-number exercise more than anything else.
What’s needed urgently now is mostly ammunition for existing kit, and cheap delivery mechanisms such as drones.
There’s almost no tanks left fighting in Ukraine, because half a dozen cheap drones can now easily blow the turret off old Soviet tanks.
Capability today is also more important than capability tomorrow, so buy stuff off-the-shelf or licence known-good kit from friendly nations. Looking at you, Ajax. When the base vehicles were handbuilt decades ago, you’re never going to be able to standardise them now, a lesson that should have been learned from the Nimrod project a couple of decades ago.
Anyway, as someone who queues into the Brynglas Tunnel two or three times a week, I say go for it, and while you're at it an estuary airport at Magor.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43947
This morning, I switched from BBC Radio 4 to BBC Radio 5 Live to hear Kemi Badenoch’s pitch to a broader audience ahead of the local elections. In an interview with Rick Edwards, the Tory leader punched right as she increasingly seeks to cast the Conservatives as the “sensible” right-wingers in British politics.
She also made use of the extraordinary George Robertson intervention today, in which the former Nato secretary general condemned government complacency on defence, as a means of attacking Nigel Farage as unserious. She claimed that Robertson had originally approached Reform with his critique of defence policy but was ignored.
She then went studs up on Viktor Orbán, the defeated right-wing prime minister of Hungary, attacking him as a “populist” who “left Hungary poorer than when he came in”. Badenoch also took the opportunity to lambast Trump’s Christ-posturing in recent days, calling it “preposterous” and “very bizarre”.
After years of consistent support for Trump, she set out her new position on the president: “If he’s saying something that makes sense, you know, we should agree. If he says something that doesn’t make sense, we should disagree.” She admitted the mess in the Strait of Hormuz was “caused by him not having a full plan” and said: “He’s wrong to make childish remarks. He’s wrong to use empty threats on Greenland and so on – all of that’s wrong. What he said about Iran, that’s wrong as well.”
Rather like the man who defeated Orbán, Péter Magyar, Badenoch remains an extraordinarily right-wing leader by the standards of the Conservative Party, but one who thinks her willingness to punch right might attract median voters.
A sensible government should have planned to do something about the tunnels three decades ago.
As with Stonehenge it appears than inertia wins the day, at a cost of millions of hours of lost productivity and increased pollution, as the traffic jams continue to get longer.
On the synthetic GDP approach, the idea of this methodology is to avoid getting into a subjective judgement based exercise, and use an algorithm to select the comparator countries based on similarity in performance pre Brexit. You may not like the approach but it is one that is widely used in this sort of analysis, on a range of topics, to overcome the issue of economics not being an experimental science.
You mention a lot of other stuff that was happening at the same time, such as Covid - true, but many of the things you mention also affected other countries, whereas Brexit was UK specific so it's not unreasonable to think it was a significant contributor.
My own view is that an 8% of GDP hit may be an overestimate (to be fair to NIESR that is the top of their range, the 6% bottom of their range seems more plausble). Even if it was just 4% that would be around £120bn or close to £2,000 per person. Is that a price worth paying for some notional idea of sovereignty (when in reality we have lost sovereignty as we align with EU rules we have no voice in setting)? Not in my book.
How much of the Reform vote is now being radicalised should concern Labour and the Tories .
We might need a prevent strategy !
The big advantage of the EU (in theory at least) is that it offers a market of similar size and (potentially at least) capital markets of similar size to the US. As you suggest, it appears that pre-Brexit the UK was gaining some of those benefits in a way that much of the rest of Europe wasn't.
Now we have the worst of both worlds.
I don't see why, in principle, future British membership of the EU ought not to be on terms that were more favourable overall to those that existed when Britain left, and might not involve the EU implementing some reforms before they qualified for Britain to rejoin.
One thing that I think makes British membership of the EU harder to achieve is the idea that Britain would be a supplicant that would have to beg to rejoin. A lot of Remainer crowing about how abject a failure Brexit has been falls into this trap. It's the sort of psychology that would persuade the British public to decide that it liked being out in the cold, thank you very much.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/14/canada-special-election-results-pm-mark-carney-majority-government
Since that article the Liberals have won the two remaining races in Terrebonne , Quebec and South West Scarborough.
The whole point about the rejoin argument is that it offers benefits to both parties.
That is the point of the EU - as Mrs Thatcher recognised when she pushed for the single market.
I don't want to Rejoin until there is widespread acceptance across the political spectrum that our interests are best served by going in on the same terms as everyone, full fat Euro and Schengen and whatever else is on the table by then. And then embrace it and drive it forwards. None of this half-hearted stuff. Until then, stay out, and do Brexit properly and see if it works.
If it really is the 4th industrial revolution or perhaps even more than that then being able to move without all the EU's precautionary principle rules might be a huge advantage.
2% of global GDP is a hell of a lot, not a tiny amount.
The point is not that we should do x, y, or z with our sovereignty, but that we can debate x, y and z and vote every few years to change course.
Pooling sovereignty would make sense if you want a country called Europe and a demos of European citizens determining laws at European elections, but that has not turned out and people adamantly claim that is not what they want.
To pool sovereignty but to not have an effective electoral debate over it that can change course on a regular basis is profoundly undemocratic.
It raises the question, why would we do this?
BREAKING: FIFA to award trump a medical degree.
https://www.techlaw.ie/2026/03/articles/artificial-intelligence/eu-ai-act-timeline-update/
There have been repeated economic shocks wrought by Trump’s erratic and damaging decisions. Which have led to market panics and then rebounds as the next TACO gets announced. But surely the TACOs don’t undo all the damage - they just steady the ship ready for repairs. Before the next shot in the foot.
So why is the overall market position still so high - as though nothing damaging has been happening at all. It makes no sense to me. Global share prices indexes have been increasing for years and arguably would be due a significant downward correction some time soon even without all this self harming behaviour. It makes no sense to me.
Be brave when others are fearful etc. Well I’m fearful for the market - but no longer for my own position. Good luck to the brave!
Cash and accept long term devaluation? Perhaps that is the answer but historically it has not been.
It has to go somewhere and nowhere looks great.
Labour MP @SamanthaNiblet4 has launched a campaign to make 2026 the “summer of sex”, calling for a more open and inclusive approach to lifelong sex ed
In the EU there was no demos to debate or vote on matters. That is undemocratic.
Britain has a shortage of soldiers (and pilots and sailors), of equipment for those soldiers and ammunition for that equipment. Britain would be knocked out of a war against a peer adversary within about two weeks (when we'd run out of ammunition) at most. There wouldn't be the time to learn what was needed more of.
I have been trying to find (without success) a single war he has voted against
Can anyone help
Maybe one day it will, but not yet.
He said he had “absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing”, saying of the affair: “I made a mistake – I had a lapse in judgment and it was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions … Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife, Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has, and my faith is as strong as ever.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/13/republican-tony-gonzales-congress
That's a very convenient relationship he has with God.
And unless God has been doing that burning bush / wall writing in Gonzalez's district it looks like a very presumptive relationship he has with God.
Not sure if working is spelt correctly
*UK PAYS THE HIGHEST YIELD ON A 10-YEAR DEBT SALE SINCE 2008
Down in those valleys taught by sex education
That's where Niblet's horn is made
Oh oh oh
That's giant