is entirely possible to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time.
Brexit was a political and economic catastrophe for Britain — a project built for a world of frictionless global trade, geopolitical stability, and dependable Atlanticism. Instead, we now inhabit its inverse: protectionism, fragmentation, strategic insecurity, and an increasingly erratic United States.
The skeletal Brexit settlement cobbled together by the intellectually vacant Johnson government left Britain more economically estranged from Europe than countries like Turkey or Iceland. Trade friction increased. Regulatory burdens multiplied. Freedom of movement vanished for ordinary citizens while bureaucracy expanded for everyone else. Beneath the forced optimism of the British right-wing press lies a slow, grinding national decline.
But it is also possible to understand why Labour fears reopening the issue politically.
The problem is that “now is not the time” has become the permanent excuse of timid politics. There is always another election, another crisis, another focus group, another warning not to upset the ghosts of 2016.
If Brexit is genuinely damaging the country — economically, strategically, culturally — then there is no magical future moment when repairing it becomes easier. Leadership is not waiting for perfect conditions. It is recognising a mistake and correcting it before the damage deepens further.
There is rarely a convenient time to do the right thing.
Setting a direction of travel and concrete steps to returning to the Single Market and - eventually - the EU; AND - at the same time - setting out tangible policies on cutting the cost of living is the best strategy IMO.
Labour badly needs to shore up its left flank and the best way of doing that is bold policies on the EU, renewable energy, constitutional reform etc.
Consolidate your liberal base before picking off the Reform curious floating voters with a clear policy vision is the only way forward to my mind.
Not clear to me that Burnham understands that; he was cleverly outflanked by Streeting. That's politics.
By demurring on the EU question - which was never put to bed - Burnham currently seems to be offering Starmer 2.0.
What 'growth' would that be? Can you name three iconic French, German or Italian businesses that are less than fifty years old? No googling now! Within ten years the average Mississippi trailer park resident will be wealthier than the average middle class European. Sooner, probably if the situation in France cannot be resolved satisfactorily. We'll find out next year
Agreed. It will take a long time -if ever to rejoin. Maybe next generation. In the meantime, opening up discussions on better economic collaboration with the EU is a no-brainer… but even that is seen as taboo both on left and right.
Fantastic piece, and an uncomfortable but realistic read for a committed European. I suspect that the UK's current situation is so weak that negotiating with the EU now would lead to a very difficult deal for many. Better to rebuild that relationship step by step whilst focusing on establishing a clear vision and executing a re-industrialisation and defence strategy for the UK, devolve more powers to the regions, use the freedom the UK has from the EU to invest in the country at large and when all that is a success, and the UK is a more attractive partner, think about rejoining.
There's no point getting frothed about the EU; they would be mad to consider having us back when we're increasingly inclined to elect parties who don't want us in the EU. We won't trust the USA for decades, and the EU can't trust us for the same reasons.
I agree that voters like the idea of having control of matters which affect their own lives, and of course, this is a perfectly natural wish. The question is how it can be obtained.
In the first instance, this requires the basics of life to be readily available - adequate food, health care, education, housing and protection from crime. That means a high level of social provision, but also an economy strong enough to support that, and a high degree of social cohesion so that citizens are willing to share. That takes us back to the decades-long failure of the British economy to invest but an investment strategy requires patience and sound decision-making.
The geographical imbalance, as well as the class one, in the UK contributes to a feeling of powerlessness. In both cases the right clearly offer phoney answers but a progressive solution will not appear overnight or easily. The need therefore is to build sufficient political support for a longer-term strategy and confidence in the people to carry it out. That has clearly not been established.
In my view that could only be achieved by a political party led by a team of people sharing their talents and working together. It is a tragedy that we have not achieved that and that individual egos seem to be more important than collective patriotic effort. If we view the current situation as one in which we replace a failure by a superstar, we will not succeed.
Rejoining the EU has to be seen as a long-term and contingent project and cannot be central to the immediate crisis (with Farage on the edge of power it is a crisis). Progressive leaders have to find a way of working together and communicating their commitment to the public.
I can’t see any way back in the short term - as you have observed, the terms of re-entry would likely not be palatable to a majority of the electorate, given they would likely be worse than we left on.
Nevertheless, articulating the medium-long term aspiration and benefits is an essential step to build political support. The increase in price should be hung around the necks of Farage, Reform and the Conservative Party that enabled them.
Regulation of new industries, if this refers to AI and cloud computing, as well as rebuilding the defence sector for 21st century, does require regulation and cooperation across Europe. Without that, there is a real danger that dependency on the US will increase, despite the clear demonstration that they are an unreliable strategic partner.
Building technological resilience against the threat that systems and weapons can be denied at the whim of US government or billionaire autocrats seems to demand EU level cooperation- and perhaps provides an opportunity to redevelop our economies and industry. This does not need to be exclusive of the US, but does demand a rebalancing of the relative power dynamic.
Brexit has destroyed many small importers and exporters, and severely damaged many others, yet you seem to care not one iota for these businesses. Instead you tote AI as the answer to the UK's deep seated economic problems. So far there no evidence it will produce new commercial sectors, comparable to the industrial revolution, in the economy, and any increase in economic activity from building new data centres will be transitory.
How many of the millionaires amongst your friends and neighbours actually got that way by doing something productive? Not many I suspect. The UK's most 'deep-seated problem' is a financial system, largely put in place by Gordon Brown, that squeezes the productive economy in order to reward the rent-seeking suburban middle class for their votes with artificially inflated house prices, unfunded pensions and all sorts of other perks. Re-joining the EU isn't going to fix that. It will take a complete transformation of the fiscal system, education system and corporate and government culture. Let's not hold our breath.
The govt has to rebuild a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability to explore rejoining, though realistically that won’t happen in the foreseeable future. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining for now, is escapism. We have to regenerate our own future.
The govt has to build a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability from which to explore rejoining, though realistically rejoining won’t happen in the foreseeable future, for without stable government we can’t go forward. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining as now envisaged, is escapism.
With a limited purse, the Chancellor can only encourage innovation to create new industries from many of the university patents made each year. So basically we have to regenerate our own future.
The govt has to build a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability from which to explore rejoining, though realistically rejoining won’t happen in the foreseeable future, for without stable government we can’t go forward. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining as now envisaged, is escapism.
With a limited purse, the Chancellor can only encourage innovation to create new industries from many of the university patents made each year. So basically we have to regenerate our own future.
The govt has to build a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability from which to explore rejoining, though realistically rejoining won’t happen in the foreseeable future, for without stable government we can’t go forward. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining as now envisaged, is escapism.
With a limited purse, the Chancellor can only encourage innovation to create new industries from many of the university patents made each year. So basically we have to regenerate our own future.
The govt has to build a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability from which to explore rejoining, though realistically rejoining won’t happen in the foreseeable future, for without stable government we can’t go forward. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining as now envisaged, is escapism.
With a limited purse, the Chancellor can only encourage innovation to create new industries from many of the university patents made each year. So basically we have to regenerate our own future.
The govt has to build a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability from which to explore rejoining, though realistically rejoining won’t happen in the foreseeable future, for without stable government we can’t go forward. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining as now envisaged, is escapism.
With a limited purse, the Chancellor can only encourage innovation to create new industries from many of the university patents made each year. So basically we have to regenerate our own future.
Your writing helps keep me sane in these post truth day, Lewis. I’ve been a Labour moderate all my life beginning with Harold Wilson’s seminal “White Heat” Scarborough conference speech which still has economic and political currency today. Thank you.
is entirely possible to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time.
Brexit was a political and economic catastrophe for Britain — a project built for a world of frictionless global trade, geopolitical stability, and dependable Atlanticism. Instead, we now inhabit its inverse: protectionism, fragmentation, strategic insecurity, and an increasingly erratic United States.
The skeletal Brexit settlement cobbled together by the intellectually vacant Johnson government left Britain more economically estranged from Europe than countries like Turkey or Iceland. Trade friction increased. Regulatory burdens multiplied. Freedom of movement vanished for ordinary citizens while bureaucracy expanded for everyone else. Beneath the forced optimism of the British right-wing press lies a slow, grinding national decline.
But it is also possible to understand why Labour fears reopening the issue politically.
The problem is that “now is not the time” has become the permanent excuse of timid politics. There is always another election, another crisis, another focus group, another warning not to upset the ghosts of 2016.
If Brexit is genuinely damaging the country — economically, strategically, culturally — then there is no magical future moment when repairing it becomes easier. Leadership is not waiting for perfect conditions. It is recognising a mistake and correcting it before the damage deepens further.
There is rarely a convenient time to do the right thing.
Two things can indeed be true at the same time.
Setting a direction of travel and concrete steps to returning to the Single Market and - eventually - the EU; AND - at the same time - setting out tangible policies on cutting the cost of living is the best strategy IMO.
Labour badly needs to shore up its left flank and the best way of doing that is bold policies on the EU, renewable energy, constitutional reform etc.
Consolidate your liberal base before picking off the Reform curious floating voters with a clear policy vision is the only way forward to my mind.
Not clear to me that Burnham understands that; he was cleverly outflanked by Streeting. That's politics.
By demurring on the EU question - which was never put to bed - Burnham currently seems to be offering Starmer 2.0.
A Labour government needs the economic growth that would come from rejoining to fund it's domestic transformatve changes though.
What 'growth' would that be? Can you name three iconic French, German or Italian businesses that are less than fifty years old? No googling now! Within ten years the average Mississippi trailer park resident will be wealthier than the average middle class European. Sooner, probably if the situation in France cannot be resolved satisfactorily. We'll find out next year
Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden all significantly richer than the uK.
France about the same GDP per capita with significantly more time off, early retirment and much better living standards.
All paid for with debt. Do you have children?
Agreed. It will take a long time -if ever to rejoin. Maybe next generation. In the meantime, opening up discussions on better economic collaboration with the EU is a no-brainer… but even that is seen as taboo both on left and right.
Fantastic piece, and an uncomfortable but realistic read for a committed European. I suspect that the UK's current situation is so weak that negotiating with the EU now would lead to a very difficult deal for many. Better to rebuild that relationship step by step whilst focusing on establishing a clear vision and executing a re-industrialisation and defence strategy for the UK, devolve more powers to the regions, use the freedom the UK has from the EU to invest in the country at large and when all that is a success, and the UK is a more attractive partner, think about rejoining.
There's no point getting frothed about the EU; they would be mad to consider having us back when we're increasingly inclined to elect parties who don't want us in the EU. We won't trust the USA for decades, and the EU can't trust us for the same reasons.
I agree that voters like the idea of having control of matters which affect their own lives, and of course, this is a perfectly natural wish. The question is how it can be obtained.
In the first instance, this requires the basics of life to be readily available - adequate food, health care, education, housing and protection from crime. That means a high level of social provision, but also an economy strong enough to support that, and a high degree of social cohesion so that citizens are willing to share. That takes us back to the decades-long failure of the British economy to invest but an investment strategy requires patience and sound decision-making.
The geographical imbalance, as well as the class one, in the UK contributes to a feeling of powerlessness. In both cases the right clearly offer phoney answers but a progressive solution will not appear overnight or easily. The need therefore is to build sufficient political support for a longer-term strategy and confidence in the people to carry it out. That has clearly not been established.
In my view that could only be achieved by a political party led by a team of people sharing their talents and working together. It is a tragedy that we have not achieved that and that individual egos seem to be more important than collective patriotic effort. If we view the current situation as one in which we replace a failure by a superstar, we will not succeed.
Rejoining the EU has to be seen as a long-term and contingent project and cannot be central to the immediate crisis (with Farage on the edge of power it is a crisis). Progressive leaders have to find a way of working together and communicating their commitment to the public.
I can’t see any way back in the short term - as you have observed, the terms of re-entry would likely not be palatable to a majority of the electorate, given they would likely be worse than we left on.
Nevertheless, articulating the medium-long term aspiration and benefits is an essential step to build political support. The increase in price should be hung around the necks of Farage, Reform and the Conservative Party that enabled them.
Regulation of new industries, if this refers to AI and cloud computing, as well as rebuilding the defence sector for 21st century, does require regulation and cooperation across Europe. Without that, there is a real danger that dependency on the US will increase, despite the clear demonstration that they are an unreliable strategic partner.
Building technological resilience against the threat that systems and weapons can be denied at the whim of US government or billionaire autocrats seems to demand EU level cooperation- and perhaps provides an opportunity to redevelop our economies and industry. This does not need to be exclusive of the US, but does demand a rebalancing of the relative power dynamic.
Brexit has destroyed many small importers and exporters, and severely damaged many others, yet you seem to care not one iota for these businesses. Instead you tote AI as the answer to the UK's deep seated economic problems. So far there no evidence it will produce new commercial sectors, comparable to the industrial revolution, in the economy, and any increase in economic activity from building new data centres will be transitory.
How many of the millionaires amongst your friends and neighbours actually got that way by doing something productive? Not many I suspect. The UK's most 'deep-seated problem' is a financial system, largely put in place by Gordon Brown, that squeezes the productive economy in order to reward the rent-seeking suburban middle class for their votes with artificially inflated house prices, unfunded pensions and all sorts of other perks. Re-joining the EU isn't going to fix that. It will take a complete transformation of the fiscal system, education system and corporate and government culture. Let's not hold our breath.
I can see what Lewis is saying.
The govt has to rebuild a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability to explore rejoining, though realistically that won’t happen in the foreseeable future. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining for now, is escapism. We have to regenerate our own future.
I can see what Lewis is saying.
The govt has to build a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability from which to explore rejoining, though realistically rejoining won’t happen in the foreseeable future, for without stable government we can’t go forward. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining as now envisaged, is escapism.
With a limited purse, the Chancellor can only encourage innovation to create new industries from many of the university patents made each year. So basically we have to regenerate our own future.
I can see what Lewis is saying.
The govt has to build a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability from which to explore rejoining, though realistically rejoining won’t happen in the foreseeable future, for without stable government we can’t go forward. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining as now envisaged, is escapism.
With a limited purse, the Chancellor can only encourage innovation to create new industries from many of the university patents made each year. So basically we have to regenerate our own future.
I can see what Lewis is saying.
The govt has to build a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability from which to explore rejoining, though realistically rejoining won’t happen in the foreseeable future, for without stable government we can’t go forward. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining as now envisaged, is escapism.
With a limited purse, the Chancellor can only encourage innovation to create new industries from many of the university patents made each year. So basically we have to regenerate our own future.
I can see what Lewis is saying.
The govt has to build a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability from which to explore rejoining, though realistically rejoining won’t happen in the foreseeable future, for without stable government we can’t go forward. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining as now envisaged, is escapism.
With a limited purse, the Chancellor can only encourage innovation to create new industries from many of the university patents made each year. So basically we have to regenerate our own future.
I can see what Lewis is saying.
The govt has to build a foundation of trust/ respect with the electorate that will give it the stability from which to explore rejoining, though realistically rejoining won’t happen in the foreseeable future, for without stable government we can’t go forward. Logically, to me anyway, that means rejoining as now envisaged, is escapism.
With a limited purse, the Chancellor can only encourage innovation to create new industries from many of the university patents made each year. So basically we have to regenerate our own future.
Your writing helps keep me sane in these post truth day, Lewis. I’ve been a Labour moderate all my life beginning with Harold Wilson’s seminal “White Heat” Scarborough conference speech which still has economic and political currency today. Thank you.