Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU. Show all posts

23 June 2026

Brexit at Ten: the long decade

Photo: Clive Simpson

TEN years ago tonight I sat up late watching the results of the EU referendum come in. Like millions of others, I had expected the country to step back from the brink. Instead, on the morning of 24 June 2016, Britain woke to discover it had embarked upon the largest act of economic and political self-harm in its modern history.

A decade later, the verdict is in. Brexit has failed. That is not a partisan slogan or the bitter complaint of someone who voted Remain. It is the unavoidable conclusion reached after ten years of evidence.

The remarkable thing about the tenth anniversary is not that Brexit remains controversial. It is that anyone still feels able to argue it has been a success.

Had Brexit delivered even a fraction of what was promised, now would be a day of national celebration. There would be speeches, commemorations and triumphant headlines. Politicians would be queueing up to claim credit. Instead, most would rather avoid mentioning it at all.

That silence speaks volumes. As I wrote in the aftermath of the referendum, Brexit was never really about Europe. It became a vessel into which voters poured every frustration they felt about austerity, immigration, stagnant wages, housing shortages, failing public services and political neglect. The European Union became a convenient proxy for a host of domestic failures that had little to do with Brussels and everything to do with Westminster.

The cure turned out to be worse than the disease. The promised economic renaissance never arrived. The bonfire of red tape never happened. The NHS did not receive £350 million a week. Trade did not become easier. British exporters did not discover a golden age of global opportunity. Instead, a growing body of evidence points in precisely the opposite direction.

Recent research suggests that Brexit has reduced UK GDP per capita by between six and eight per cent compared with similar advanced economies. Business investment is estimated to be 12 to 18 per cent lower than it would otherwise have been, while employment and productivity have both suffered significant declines.

These are not abstract statistics. They represent lost opportunities, lower wages, reduced tax revenues and fewer resources for public services than would have otherwise been the case.

In 2019 I described this as Brexit's "invisible uncertainty" – the economic drag created when businesses postpone decisions, investors look elsewhere and opportunities quietly disappear. A decade on, that uncertainty is no longer invisible. It is reflected in the country's weaker growth, lower productivity and diminished prospects.

Even before the long-term consequences became clear, markets delivered an immediate verdict. When the referendum result emerged in June 2016, sterling experienced its largest single-day fall since the era of floating exchange rates began. Unlike the stock market, which eventually recovered, the pound never truly regained its former strength.

Of course, Brexit supporters have spent years arguing that the real problem was not Brexit itself but the way it was implemented. It is a familiar defence.

Communism never failed because of communism. It failed because it was implemented incorrectly. Brexit, apparently, suffers from the same convenient excuse. Yet the reality is that Brexit was always built upon contradictory promises.

Britain would enjoy all the benefits of membership without any obligations. Immigration would fall while the economy boomed. Trade would become easier despite introducing barriers with our largest trading partner. Regulation would be slashed while standards remained unchanged.

These things could never all be true at the same time and, 10 years on, the public increasingly recognises that fact.

In 2022 when I wrote ‘Breaking the Brexit Taboo’ and questioned why Brexit was still treated in some quarters as an act of disloyalty. Today the taboo has largely disappeared. The debate has moved on from whether Brexit can be criticised to whether anyone can credibly claim it has succeeded.

According to recent polling, 57 per cent of people in Great Britain now believe leaving the EU was the wrong decision, while only 30 per cent think it was right. The only surprising thing about that statistic is that 30 per cent still think it was the right decision.

The referendum itself now feels like a relic from another political age. David Cameron, who called it, resigned within hours of losing it. Theresa May was consumed by it. Boris Johnson rode it into Downing Street before being destroyed by his own conduct. Liz Truss briefly crashed the economy. Rishi Sunak inherited the wreckage. Keir Starmer attempted to manage the consequences but had only been repairing EU relations in a limited way.

By this tenth anniversary Britain has gone through seven prime ministers since the vote. Stability and prosperity were among Brexit's promises. Neither has been delivered.

And then there is immigration. One of the central arguments advanced by Leave campaigners was that Brexit would allow Britain to "take back control" of its borders.

Yet net migration reached record levels in the years following departure from the EU. Whatever one thinks about immigration itself, Brexit demonstrably failed on one of its own defining tests.

Several years ago, in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, I coined the phrase "long Brexit". The comparison with Long Covid seemed appropriate then and even more so today. The acute political shock may have passed but the symptoms remain stubbornly present.

Economic under performance, labour shortages, trade friction, political instability and endless arguments about Europe continued to shape British life long after the referendum itself had disappeared into history. A decade later long Brexit remains with us.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of the entire saga is the opportunity lost.

Imagine a Britain that had spent the last decade focusing on housing, productivity, energy security, climate adaptation, infrastructure, education and healthcare rather than tying itself in knots over customs arrangements, trade agreements and constitutional disputes.

Imagine a politics that had sought solutions to the country's real problems rather than inventing imaginary enemies.

Instead, an entire generation has lived through a period dominated by a project that promised national renewal and delivered national diminishment.

The irony is that Brexit was sold as a means of restoring sovereignty and confidence. Yet modern Britain feels less confident, less prosperous and less influential than it did in 2016.

Brexit was sold as an event. In reality it became a condition and history will ultimately decide where the episode sits in the long story of this country. But ten years on, one conclusion seems unavoidable. The referendum was not the beginning of Britain's revival. It was the beginning of a long decade of decline.

And, as the country prepares for yet another Prime Minister and another round of ministerial changes, we are still living with the consequences.

#         #          # 

Photo: The Sir Peter Scott lighthouse at Sutton Bridge from a photo by the author. The original picture was taken during a recce trip for the novel Flood Waters Down, a climate change and AI thriller which is available now.

Brexit election's invisible uncertainty

Space Oddity

Breaking the Brexit taboo



04 July 2025

Post-Brexit UK faces up to EU Space Act

 

The European Commission’s long-awaited unveiling of the EU Space Act on 25 June 2025 marked a pivotal step towards harmonised space governance across the bloc.

Framed around safety, resilience and sustainability, the proposed regulation aims to streamline market access, strengthen cybersecurity and mitigate orbital debris – all while boosting the EU’s strategic autonomy in space.

Yet for those operating outside the EU’s regulatory orbit – notably post-Brexit UK – the Act presents new uncertainties.

These tensions surfaced during this week’s European Space Forum, held in Brussels on 3-4 July, where 450 delegates gathered to discuss the future of Europe’s space ambitions.

During a panel discussion on ‘Delivering Autonomy’, I asked UK government representative William Smith, how the Act might affect UK space operators, now classed as part of a “third country” under EU law.

“I think it's very early days to comment,” he replied. “The UK Government don't have a formal position yet. We acknowledge what [the Act] is trying to do and support any endeavour that is looking to make the orbital environment and space in general more secure, more resilient and safer. That is a collective good, undoubtedly.”

He went on to emphasise the UK’s own regulatory framework: “The UK's regulatory regime is an outcomes-based, agile regime, which works. It's not perfect but we get good feedback from international stakeholders.”

The EU Space Act, still in draft form, outlines the possibility of recognising third-country regulatory regimes as equivalent – but offers no detail yet on how such equivalence would be determined or negotiated.

This leaves UK-based companies potentially facing a dual compliance burden or limitations on market access unless formal agreements are reached.

Without clarity on equivalence, UK firms hoping to provide services within the EU may face fresh licensing or oversight hurdles. The EU’s detailed rules on debris mitigation, cybersecurity and environmental impact may also diverge from UK approaches.

Still, with the proposed implementation date set for 1 January 2030, a transitional window provides space – and time – for dialogue and potential alignment.

While the UK government assesses the fine print, industry voices are likely to press for early engagement to avoid regulatory friction. If managed well, the situation could still evolve into a constructive regulatory partnership that enables innovation and access on both sides.

But Smith’s response, while diplomatic, underscored a recurring theme of constructive ambiguity that characterised much of the European Space Forum.

With no formal UK stance yet, industry remains in a holding pattern, awaiting clarity on whether the country’s agile, outcomes-based regime will be deemed sufficiently compatible.

In the meantime, the EU’s move should be seen as a positive step. It signals a firm commitment to space sustainability, safety and long-term governance – and a timely reminder that access to orbit increasingly comes with strings attached.

#         # 

Links: European Space Forum & EU Space Act

20 May 2025

An end to Brexit's tiresome rhetoric

 

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's ‘EU reset’ deal this week is to be welcomed as a positive and long-overdue step in the right direction.

But in its wake, the usual chorus of Brexit hardliners – Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, Kemi Badenoch and Boris Johnson – have emerged from the shadows, decrying it as a betrayal of British sovereignty.

As usual, their criticisms ring hollow and lack substance when juxtaposed with the tangible benefits and potential the deal offers compared to the stark realities and damage of Brexit's aftermath.

It’s a pragmatic step forward, marking a significant stride in mending the UK's fractured relationship with the European Union.

Key components include:

  • Defence cooperation – renewed collaboration on security and defence initiatives enhances the UK's role in European stability and strengthens joint responses to global threats.
  • Economic boost – the agreement is projected to add £9 billion to the UK economy by 2040, primarily through streamlined trade in agrifoods and electricity.
  • Reintegration into Erasmus – British students will once again have access to the Erasmus programme, fostering educational and cultural exchange.
  • Eased travel – UK travellers will benefit from faster e-gate access in EU countries, reducing airport delays.
  • Energy cooperation – rejoining the EU's internal energy market could save UK consumers £37 billion annually.

Hardliners have lambasted the deal, labelling it as "rule-taking" and a “surrender of sovereignty”, desperately clinging to their failed narrative and arguments of the past.

Take fishing rights, for example. While the deal extends EU fishing access to UK waters for 12 years, it does not increase quotas or change what was previously agreed. The concession does, however, facilitate broader economic gains, including the resumption of UK shellfish exports.

And on regulatory alignment. Aligning with EU food standards reduces red tape, benefiting UK exporters and consumers alike. This is a pragmatic choice, not a capitulation, and has been widely welcomed by British businesses already.

The original Brexit vision pledged control, prosperity and a so-called return to ‘sovereignty’. But nearly a decade on the evidence tells a very different story.

Economic self-harm – since Brexit, the UK economy has haemorrhaged an estimated £100 billion a year in lost output. Business investment stalled and labour markets have been squeezed.

Export chaos – once-proud British industries, such as fishing and agriculture, were hit hardest. UK seafood exports to Europe slumped by over 25 percent, with shellfish sellers facing insurmountable trade barriers. This, despite being one of the sectors Brexit was supposedly meant to “liberate”.

Immigration irony – and those claims about controlling immigration? Reality bites hard. Net migration hit a record 728,000 in the year to June 2024 – not from the EU, but from countries further afield. The end of free movement didn’t mean fewer arrivals, just a more chaotic and costly system to manage them.

As many predicted – including this writer – the so-called 'Brexit dividend' quickly turned out to be a mirage of false promises.

And yet, the likes of Farage in his reinvented Reform party and his fellow hardliners continue to peddle the same tired slogans – blind to the economic wreckage, indifferent to the lived experience of working people and unwilling to engage with reality.

That’s why Keir Starmer’s reset deal deserves more than a cautious welcome – it deserves recognition as a long-overdue, grown-up intervention.

Refreshingly, it sets aside chest-thumping ideology in favour of cooperation, stability and mutual benefit. It restores damaged channels of trade, mobility and trust – and offers a way back towards international relevance.

Predictably, the billionaire-owned right-wing press have gone into full outrage mode. But beyond the headlines and faux fury, a quieter truth is emerging – much of the country is ready to move on.

Businesses are relieved. Students are hopeful. Travellers and exporters see a future with fewer pointless obstacles.

This deal isn’t about reversing Brexit – it’s about repairing what was broken. And if Farage and friends find that uncomfortable, it’s only because they no longer have a credible argument to make.

Their Brexit dream has failed. The rest of us are ready to refocus and look to the future.

18 January 2021

Space Oddity

 
 
THE fact that the European Union (EU) is consolidating its space programmes under a new agency that is being given an expanded mandate is not particularly good news for the UK space industry - at least as long as the current Johnson government remains in power.

As has already been proven with the Brexit end-of-transition negotiations, anything with EU in the title has been like a red rag to the Tory right, which has used its disproportionate influence to persuade the prime minister cut off as many ties with Europe as possible, beneficial or not.

There are many examples, including the ERASMUS student scheme and perhaps even Galileo itself, the European satellite navigation system in which the UK has played such a significant role.

The politically skewered view that the UK could just go ahead and build its own multi-billion pound replacement to Galileo was, in reality, just more jingoistic hot air to serve the “sovereignty above all else” headlines.

Like so many post-Brexit negotiating decisions, the loss of high-level access to the navigation satellite  system was a politically driven position - a government, huffing and puffing to leave and failing to consider rationally what was the country’s best interest.

The UK's final big industrial contribution to the EU's Galileo sat-nav system was delivered before Christmas after Guildford-based Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL) shipped the last of the navigation payloads, which are described as  the "brains" of the spacecraft generating the signals the Galileo network sends down to Earth.

Britain’s "third country" status now means UK companies can no longer be involved in the hi-tech end as they once were because Galileo is regarded by the EU as a security programme and only firms in its 27 member states or those with separate agreements can take on sensitive work.

Of course, like many things with Brexit, it didn’t have to be like this. Norway, for example, which is not an EU member, negotiated itself an agreement giving access to Galileo’s high-level signals and the ability to supply sensitive hi-tech instruments.

A savvy UK government, not driven by political ideologies, could easily have achieved the same had it wanted to rather than erect another trade barrier, this time in “space”, of its own choosing.

So, given the UK’s somewhat intransigent and often seemingly ill-thought out positions of late, the EU’s consolidation of its space programmes may not be to Britain’s long term advantage.
                        
The European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency (GSA), which  acts as the technical and procurement agent for the EU's space projects, will be renamed the EU Agency for the Space Programme (EUASP).

As such, it will also take on managing the use of the Copernicus Earth observation satellite system and oversee new initiatives in satellite communications named GOVSATCOM and space situational awareness (SSA).

The Prague-based agency will continue to manage use of the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Systems (EGNOS) and Galileo satellite navigation programmes.

According to a European Commission (EC) press release last week, EUASP “will increasingly support the exploitation and market uptake of EU space activities, and play a bigger role in ensuring the security of all the components of the programme.”

EU Internal Market Commissioner, Thierry Breton, praised the reorganisation of the union’s space programmes. “Europe is the second space power in the world. But the global race is on,” he said. 

“With this agreement, we now have the means to develop our leadership in space by consolidating our flagships – Galileo and Copernicus – and exploring new initiatives that will enhance Europe’s resilience, notably in secure connectivity.”

The EU has a seven-year space budget of €13.2 billion ($16 billion) up to 2027 and most of these funds will be focused on operating and expanding the Copernicus and Galileo satellite systems. The European Space Agency (ESA), of which the UK remains a part, oversees technical aspects and development of the spacecraft.

EUASP will also oversee the new European GOVSATCOM that is designed to provide reliable, secure and cost-effective satellite communications for the EU and its member state governments.

In addition, the agency will be instructed to manage a new Space Situational Awareness (SSA) programme designed to help prevent collisions of objects in Earth orbit and uncontrolled reentries from this increasingly over-crowded environment. The programme will also focus on monitoring space weather and near Earth objects.

So, despite remaining part of ESA, which at least for the time being will give the UK an on-going role in the Copernicus programme, it remains to be seen what effect the EU’s increasing involvement in the organisation of European space programmes will have.

Allied with the UK’s irrational desire to cut off as many ties with the EU as possible, will it ultimately be to the detriment of UK involvement and leadership of this hi-tech and lucrative industry?

Over the coming months, and years, such matters will go much deeper than the “temporary” disruptions and difficulties that are now becoming more and more evident by the day for firms and traders at UK borders.

The term 'Long Covid' has become increasingly familiar as the Covid-19 pandemic has progressed. Sadly, if previously vibrant and successful UK industries suffer the very practical fallout of misplaced political ideology and British exceptionalism, it may not be long before 'Long Brexit' becomes a thing too. 

*          *          *

Editor's note: thanks to Prof Chris Grey for the acknowledgement and mention in his Brexit & Beyond blog on 22 January 2021, and the suggestion that the term Long Brexit has better parity with Long Covid by dropping the hyphen.

Brexit at Ten: the long decade

Photo: Clive Simpson TEN years ago tonight I sat up late watching the results of the EU referendum come in. Like millions of others, I had e...