The FT has a rather more sober analysis by Peter Foster and Jim Pickard, both seasoned reporters on the Brexit reversal question. They talk of the changed public attitude to Brexit, with 53% support for rejoining against 32% for staying out and the problems surrounding Labour’s attempt at a so-called ‘reset’.
One Brussels insider is reported to have said: "There was just a staggering naivety at the outset, [They thought] that because they weren’t the Tories, all manner of things could and would get done."
For Labour, according to one source, the worry is about the EU talking about the UK having to go “cap in hand” to Brussels and being seen as the penitent. Also, fears that the EU will insist we adopt the Euro. It’s about political presentation more than anything substantial. It's as if the majority knows and accepts Britain will rejoin at some point but everyone is looking at each other to find a way of putting the idea back on the serious agenda.
The EU are not going to give the UK market access to “those areas of the single market only where they [the UK] believe they have a competitive advantage” while having the freedom to diverge in other areas like gene editing and AI, where we might then gain another opportunity. They would be mad to do this, but we apparently still think it could happen.
Sir Ivan Rogers is quoted. The former UKREP in Brussels who was fired by Theresa May back in 2017, presumably for being honest about what could be achieved in the negotiations that were about to start, thinks it is "naive to hope that the EU will soften its negotiating position because of the rise of Trump and the threat of Russia and China."
“The exam question is: where do you want to be in 10 or 15 years’ time, given the world we appear to be moving into? Is the UK seriously prepared to rethink its red lines?” Rogers asks. He questions the viability of a UK strategy that at present appears to seek alignment with Europe on industrial goods but move closer to the US on technologies like AI.
I think the British people will face a real choice at the next election. Elect Farage and give him his chance to make Brexit work, then watch him fail spectacularly over the next four years at huge cost to this country in both economic, security and reputational terms. If Mr Brexit himself can’t make a success of it, the 32% who still think we should stay out will surely dwindle to basically nothing.
The Tories tried under five different prime ministers, remember, and failed. Labour took a different direction, and while some small improvements are forecast by greater alignment, it will only add about 0.3% to our GDP over the next 10-15 years. Compared to the 4-8% drop in GDP (depending who you listen to) due to Brexit. It’s a flea bite that barely anyone will notice. Even if the negotiations succeed, it will count as a failure.
The choice should be this. Do we waste more time and money, and give a known charlatan who has never run any serious organisation the chance to make a success of Brexit? Apparently, about a quarter of the electorate - the most swivel-eyed among us - believes he is the only man capable of doing so. Or do we simply cut our losses and rejoin?
Phillip Rycroft, the mandarin in charge of the Brexit department under May and Davis, is in no doubt. He thinks we should start talking seriously about rejoin because all the ‘heady promises’ during the campaign have failed to materialise. He has written an article for The Times (HERE No£) setting out his reasoning.
Neil Kinnock has an article in today's Observer: The British people know Brexit has failed them. They also know how to fix it. It's a good piece.
These are serious arguments by serious people in serious newspapers. The rumblings are growing louder; they should be heeded. Rejoin is becoming the mainstream position.
Wealth tax
This month saw the release of a film : Everyone is lying to you for money. It’s ostensibly about cryptocurrency, but if you ask me, it applies to most other areas of life on this planet at the moment, particularly in the US under Donald Trump, where the corruption and the lies at the highest levels of government are totally off the scale.
Trump and his family and associates are enriching themselves at an astonishing pace and in broad daylight, like robber barons.
However, it occurs to me that the principle that everyone is lying to you for money, also applies to lots of other areas too, like advertising, financial services, energy companies, food manufacturers, real estate and so on. This is true in spades in America, and not just by professional scammers and fraudsters. I’m talking here about the firms producing highly processed adulterated food, gas-guzzling cars, energy companies taking advantage of gullible consumers and so on into every realm you can think of. The CEOs are paid $millions per year to maximise profits at all costs, no matter what the consequences are for their customers or the environment.
Farage is the prime example of this in the UK’s political space. He is earning huge amounts from work outside parliament, all founded on lies about immigration. You can probably think of plenty of examples of your own, the privatised water companies are one for sure. The old adage about caveat emptor (buyer beware) was never more true, and must now be applied more widely than ever before.
There is talk of imposing some sort of modest wealth tax, both here and in the US. I confess it won’t affect me and it wasn’t something I would have supported in the past. However, I’ve changed my mind.
But (and it’s a big BUT), I don’t think it’s needed to raise money, although it clearly will. That shouldn’t be its primary purpose. Rather, a wealth tax is needed to prevent people becoming too powerful.
Various British monarchs had to have their wings clipped when they began to think they were omnipotent. Charles the first even lost his head. What folks objected to was the notion that powerful individuals were able to make far-reaching decisions without bothering to get the consent of the people affected through some form of democratic control.
But we are now seeing the same kind of extreme influence over our lives by excessive wealth.
Elon Musk for example, with a net worth of $800 billion, controls funds equal to the GDP of all the nations below the richest 21 or so. Ireland, at No 22 has a GDP of $779 billion in 2026 according to the IMF. Most countries are desperate to have foreign inward investment so it doesn’t take a genius to see what sort of influence that kind of financial muscle buys. Our elected representatives are bowing and scraping to a lot of very questionable techbros like Musk.
So, a wealth tax would or should prevent anyone acquiring that sort of astronomical wealth. I realise this would be difficult for many reasons, not least because of the screams of the super wealthy and those who are desperate to join their ranks.
But if we’re trying to reduce inequality, and we should be, is there any need for anyone to be a billionaire? I really can’t think of any reason why they should.
