logo
No reset would be better than this damaging deal

No reset would be better than this damaging deal

Yahoo19-05-2025

One might be tempted to say that no reset is better than a bad one. The UK's economic reset with the EU does not produce much in the way of tangible, immediate gains for the UK. It is as much about the direction of travel.
The key to any reset is to ensure it does not tie the UK's hands in future on domestic economic or trade policy. It makes sense to have a sensible and mutually beneficial working relationship with the EU. In this reset, however, the UK will have to both pay and align in return for closer ties.
Brexit was a political event, about democracy, control of our laws and ensuring power remained with UK voters as the EU moves towards ever closer union. I agree with the former governor of the Bank of England, Lord King, who said in an interview: 'It isn't really an economic issue: it's a political issue.'
Both the Prime Minister and EU president described this deal as 'comprehensive'. It is not just about the devil being in the details, but also about what follows. The so-called Common Understanding document accompanying the reset has many references to exploratory talks and references 'dynamic alignment with EU rules' where necessary.
The Government has said it does not plan to rejoin the single market or the customs union. That's important as this will not provide a solution to the UK's economic challenge and should not be part of any pro-growth strategy.
Remaining outside the single market allows the UK regulatory autonomy in key areas of future growth such as artificial intelligence.
Being outside the customs union has allowed the Government to make a trade deal with India, to agree on tariffs with the US, and to reposition the UK in a changing global economy, including having membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The major driver of future growth is the Indo-Pacific, with the EU the slow growth region.
This reset effectively sees the UK join the single market in the area of agricultural products. The post-Brexit border in the Irish Sea should go. The Government expects trade in agriculture to rise, but this will be at the expense of the UK being tied to EU rules.
The SPS agreement, for instance, covers sanitary, phytosanitary, food safety and general consumer protection rules, so effectively the UK will come under EU rules on production, which are widely seen as anti-innovation in agricultural products.
The latter ties UK agriculture's hands in gaining efficiencies with the rest of the world. The ECJ will also oversee areas of dispute.
Unfortunately, one headline-grabbing aspect is the damage it may cause to the UK fishing industry, and it will have a further painful impact on deprived parts of the UK.
The other is UK access to EU defence procurement. This could be positive, but the details and cost still need to be clarified. Seeking improved defence and security ties is understandable as the changing global landscape of geo-economics has led to national security being alongside economic prosperity in policy making.
Access to the EU energy market and emissions trading schemes is also to be explored, but again with a cost and realignment.
The reset should allow scope to address areas that, with better negotiation, should not have been in the original deal. Access to e-gates at passport control now faces 'no legal barriers', but their use is unclear. The UK wanted to address the ability of UK artists to tour, but this has not been resolved.
Youth mobility is the big unknown out of this reset. Few would want to deny opportunities to UK young people, although previously these were limited by language issues and the lack of jobs in the EU.
The genuine worry is the UK's tendency to underestimate badly how many people may wish to come, given our dynamic labour market and free health system and the high numbers of young people with EU residency permits.
The major challenges facing the UK have long predated Brexit and solutions are not reliant on being in the EU. The UK's investment shortfall dates to the 1970s, its trade deficit problem to the mid-1980s, and regional imbalances have persisted for some time.
Germany's recent recession, Italy's stagnation and France's weak growth are not blamed on Brexit, and with Britain being hit by the same global influences, our sluggish growth should not be either.
The doppelgängers that some have used to suggest we would have grown faster within the EU have been shown to be flawed, with the comparator groups changing within and across economic variables.
The inability of British politicians to articulate a coherent vision and deliver a properly thought-out economic policy have allowed figures vehemently opposed to Brexit to define the debate and helped to create an economically damaging narrative about the UK on the global stage.
While some politicians wrongly presented Brexit as transforming the country's fortunes overnight, we are still better placed to pursue a reforming, pro-growth agenda from outside the EU.
Making maximum use of the competencies that have returned to Westminster in recent years remains an opportunity, before we seek to give them away in a reset without them being used.
Though this need not necessarily rule out dynamic alignment in a few sectors, the UK needs to focus on the domestic policy levers that can be pulled to boost competitiveness.
Gerard Lyons is a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Federal labor board demands Washington Post rehire reporter fired over social media attacks
Federal labor board demands Washington Post rehire reporter fired over social media attacks

Fox News

time22 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Federal labor board demands Washington Post rehire reporter fired over social media attacks

The National Labor Relations Board is seeking reinstatement and back pay for former Washington Post reporter Felicia Sonmez, who was fired in 2022 after attacking colleagues and fiercely criticizing the paper on social media. Sonmez was terminated for insubordination after she continued condemning other Post reporters online despite multiple memos issued by then-executive editor Sally Buzbee calling for civility. The Washington-Baltimore News Guild filed an unfair labor practice charge over Sonmez's firing. The NLRB, Guild and Washington Post each filed briefs on Friday. "To put it bluntly, Respondent just got sick of Sonmez's Twitter activity criticizing the Post's and its policies, as well as its implementation—or lack thereof—of those policies. In response, Respondent decided to bypass its progressive discipline system and fire her because of those criticisms," NLRB prosecutors said. When asking for the complaint to be dismissed, the Post argued that allowing Sonmez to return to the company "would cause unmanageable and unacceptable disruption," and referred to the actions that resulted in her dismissal as a "seven-day tirade." "Because Sonmez lacks the 'journalistic integrity' necessary to work in the Post's newsroom, she should not be reinstated," the Post argued. The Guild believes the Post violated her rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The saga began in June 2022 when Sonmez went after then-colleague Dave Weigel for retweeting a joke: "Every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it's polar or sexual." Sonmez was not amused and publicly criticized her colleague, also attacking her workplace by reacting, "Fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed!" Sonmez then launched a days-long public tirade against the Post and many of her colleagues. Weigel was placed on a one-month unpaid suspension despite having removed the retweet and issuing an apology. He left the Post to join the start-up site Semafor later that year. However, Sonmez's tweetstorms berating co-workers continued, and she began receiving public pushback from Post colleagues, who Sonmez then attacked publicly. She repeatedly ripped the paper's social media policy throughout the ordeal. Sonmez even took aim at "White" reporters who expressed solidarity with the paper amid infighting. "I don't know who the colleagues anonymously disparaging me in media reports are. But I do know that the reporters who issued synchronized tweets this week downplaying the Post's workplace issues have a few things in common with each other," Sonmez wrote during a lengthy Twitter thread, saying they "are all White." Despite Buzbee urging staffers to treat each other respectfully, following a week of constant viral warfare between Post colleagues, Sonmez was terminated. The Washington Post unveiled an updated social media policy after the ordeal. NLRB prosecutors are seeking reinstatement and back pay for Sonmez, who now works for Blue Ridge Public Radio. Sonmez declined comment. "The decision is now up to the judge," Sonmez wrote on X. The Washington Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

EU targets Russia with sanctions, lower oil price cap
EU targets Russia with sanctions, lower oil price cap

UPI

time32 minutes ago

  • UPI

EU targets Russia with sanctions, lower oil price cap

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (R) and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas briefed the press Monday on the 18th package of sanctions against Russia, in Brussels, Belgium. Photo by Olivier Matthys/EPA-EFE June 10 (UPI) -- The European Commission on Tuesday unveiled its latest in a series of sanctions against Russia targeting energy exports, infrastructure and finances. "Oil exports still represent one-third of Russia's government revenues," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said at a news conference in Brussels, Belgium. "We need to cut this source of revenues," she added. The measures aimed to put pressure on Moscow to end Russia's war in Ukraine include a proposal to lower the current $60 oil price cap to $45 per barrel and bans use of the Nord Stream pipelines between Germany and Russia. At least nine individuals and 33 companies will be slapped with asset freezes. And the EU will consider adding another 77 boats part of Russia's "shadow fleet" banned in European ports of entry, part of at least 300 other barred Russian vessels. In addition, at least 22 Russian banks will be cut off from the SWIFT international banking system and the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Von der Leyen called the sanctions "robust" and "hard-biting" and added that Russia's economy has already been bowing to past pressure. "Russia continues to bring death and destruction to Ukraine," she said Monday at the press conference with Kaja Kallas, the EU's top diplomat. "Our message is clear: This war must end." Kallas called Russia's military invasion of Ukraine "outright illegal." She said it was "clear that Russia does not want peace," adding it is "cruel, aggressive and a danger to us all." It arrived ahead of this weekend's G7 summit in Alberta, Canada where the new oil price caps will be discussed. "With this package, we step up pressure on Russia," stated von der Leyen. "Our objective is very clear: We are reiterating the call for a full, unconditional ceasefire of at least 30 days," she said.

In African universities, Russia's war against Ukraine finds new supporters
In African universities, Russia's war against Ukraine finds new supporters

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

In African universities, Russia's war against Ukraine finds new supporters

The halls of academia have long been considered sanctuaries of critical thinking, intellectual discourse, and the pursuit of truth. Universities across the globe pride themselves on fostering environments where diverse perspectives can be examined, debated, and understood through the lens of scholarly rigor. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed a troubling trend within certain African academic institutions: a marked bias toward Russian narratives that undermines the very principles of academic integrity and intellectual honesty that universities claim to uphold. This bias is not merely an abstract concern about geopolitical alignment; it represents a fundamental betrayal of the educational mission that universities exist to fulfill. When academic institutions abandon objectivity in favor of political positioning, they fail their students, their communities, and the broader pursuit of knowledge that defines higher education. The stakes could not be higher as universities shape the minds of future leaders, policymakers, and citizens who will navigate an increasingly complex global landscape. When African academics present papers at international conferences that uncritically repeat Russian talking points, they undermine their own credibility and that of their institutions. Across various African universities, a concerning pattern has emerged since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Rather than maintaining the scholarly distance necessary for objective analysis, numerous institutions have embraced narratives that closely align with Russian state propaganda. This manifests in multiple ways: academic conferences that present one-sided perspectives on the conflict, research publications that uncritically amplify Moscow's justifications for the war, and classroom discussions that frame the invasion through the lens of Western imperialism rather than examining it as a clear violation of international law. Read also: Ukraine must look beyond the EU for its agricultural future The roots of this bias are complex and multifaceted. Historical ties between the Soviet Union and various African nations during the Cold War era have created lingering sympathies that some academics appear unable to separate from contemporary realities. Additionally, legitimate grievances about Western colonial history and ongoing concerns about neocolonialism have been exploited to create false equivalencies between Russian aggression and Western influence. Some academics have conflated criticism of Western policies with support for Russian actions, creating a dangerous intellectual blind spot. Economic factors also play a role. Russian investment in African educational infrastructure, scholarship programs, and research partnerships have created institutional relationships that some universities appear reluctant to jeopardize through objective analysis of Russian actions. This economic dependence has compromised academic freedom, creating situations where financial considerations override scholarly integrity. The influence of Russian state media and disinformation campaigns cannot be overlooked. RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik have specifically targeted African audiences with sophisticated propaganda operations designed to shape public opinion. Unfortunately, some academics have proven susceptible to these narratives, either through genuine belief or through a misguided sense that amplifying Russian perspectives represents intellectual diversity. When universities abandon objectivity, the consequences extend far beyond the ivory tower. Students who receive biased education are ill-equipped to understand complex global issues, make informed decisions as citizens, or contribute meaningfully to policy discussions. They graduate with skewed worldviews that may influence their professional and personal choices for decades to come. The credibility of African scholarship suffers when institutions are perceived as politically motivated rather than academically rigorous. This damages the reputation of African universities in international academic circles, potentially limiting collaboration opportunities, research partnerships, and the mobility of African scholars. When African academics present papers at international conferences that uncritically repeat Russian talking points, they undermine their own credibility and that of their institutions. True intellectual independence requires the courage to analyze situations objectively, regardless of political pressures or historical sympathies. Perhaps most importantly, bias in academia contributes to the broader information warfare that authoritarian regimes wage against democratic values and international law. Universities that should serve as bastions of critical thinking instead become unwitting participants in propaganda campaigns designed to undermine global stability and human rights. The situation becomes particularly problematic when considering the humanitarian dimensions of Russia's war against Ukraine. Hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure have been deliberately targeted by Russian forces, creating a refugee crisis that has displaced millions of people. When universities fail to acknowledge these realities or attempt to justify them through geopolitical frameworks, they implicitly endorse violence against civilians and violations of international humanitarian law. African universities must recommit to their fundamental mission of pursuing truth through rigorous scholarship rather than serving as vehicles for political propaganda. This transformation requires several concrete steps. First, universities must establish clear guidelines for faculty regarding the difference between legitimate academic analysis and political advocacy. While scholars should be free to examine controversial topics from multiple perspectives, they must do so within frameworks that respect evidence, logic, and established principles of international law. Second, African universities must diversify their funding sources and partnership arrangements to reduce dependence on any single country or ideological bloc. The current situation, where some institutions appear reluctant to criticize Russian actions due to financial relationships, represents an unacceptable compromise of academic independence. Read also: Hiding in plain sight — how Russia's cultural centers continue to operate in US, Europe despite espionage claims Third, universities must invest in media literacy and critical thinking education for both faculty and students. The susceptibility of some academics to Russian disinformation campaigns reveals significant gaps in the ability to evaluate sources, identify propaganda techniques, and distinguish between credible and manipulated information. Fourth, African universities must strengthen their commitment to international academic standards and peer review processes. When scholars publish work that fails to meet basic standards of evidence and argumentation, it reflects poorly on the entire African academic community. Rigorous peer review can help ensure that African scholarship maintains the quality necessary for international respect and collaboration. The pro-Russian bias evident in some African universities represents more than just a misguided political position; it constitutes a surrender of intellectual independence to foreign propaganda. This is particularly ironic given that many of these same institutions pride themselves on their commitment to African independence and self-determination. True intellectual independence requires the courage to analyze situations objectively, regardless of political pressures or historical sympathies. It means acknowledging uncomfortable truths about allies while maintaining the ability to critique opponents fairly. Most importantly, it means refusing to sacrifice scholarly integrity for political convenience. African universities have a proud tradition of intellectual leadership, from their role in anti-colonial movements to their contributions to post-independence development. This legacy is endangered when institutions abandon their commitment to truth in favor of political positioning. The current moment represents a critical test of whether African higher education will live up to its historical role as a force for enlightenment and progress. The stakes extend beyond the immediate question of how to analyze Russia's war against Ukraine. Universities that compromise their integrity on this issue signal their willingness to subordinate academic standards to political considerations more broadly. This has implications for everything from scientific research to economic analysis to social policy development. African universities stand at a crossroads. They can continue down the path of political bias, sacrificing their integrity for short-term political or economic gains, or they can lead by example by recommitting to the principles of scholarly objectivity and intellectual honesty that define higher education at its best. The choice is not merely about how to analyze one particular conflict; it is about the fundamental purpose and character of African higher education. Universities that choose bias over objectivity risk becoming irrelevant to serious academic discourse and ineffective in their mission to educate future leaders. The world needs African universities that can contribute meaningfully to global conversations about complex issues. This requires institutions that maintain high scholarly standards, resist political pressure, and commit themselves to the pursuit of truth regardless of where it leads. Read also: Can South Africa lead the charge for nuclear safety in Ukraine? Submit an Opinion Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent. We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store