Latest news with #Brexiters
The National
02-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
I'm concerned about the SNP's strategy for Hamilton by-election
Considering the SNP claim to currently have around 60,000 members, the 100 or so folk (and customary cute dug) on parade represented a pretty disappointing turnout. Of course the SNP had more than 120,000 members in the days before Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf. Considering that around 50% of the electorate claim to support Scottish independence, I hope the ratio of independence supporters to actual SNP voters at Thursday's by-election is a lot better than this. The turnout will be important and will help decide the eventual winner. READ MORE: Scottish Labour councillor defects to Reform UK I am both concerned and fascinated by the strategy that seems to be driving the SNP's campaign. Instead of leading on the positive case for independence, which already enjoys 50% support, John Swinney has been promoting the negative idea that Labour have already lost and their supporters should vote SNP just to keep Reform UK from winning the seat. This is a very dangerous strategy. There is a serious chance that some Labour voters will see Reform, and not the SNP, as their second choice. The bookmaker's odds on Reform winning the seat have shortened from 10/1 to 4/1. The SNP have everything to lose. Reform will claim even a moderate increase in their vote as a victory. John Baird Largs I THINK the SNP must put indy first in 2026 for two reasons. 1. It would virtually guarantee a win for the party. 2. It would show the world the desire is still there. I know we would have to win in a Westminster election, so that General Election vote would be confirming the 2026 result. If SNP don't do something major on indy, they will pay a heavy price for decades. It's time to act. I hope the party gets it but I have my doubts. They don't want to mention it. Bill Robertson Fife READ MORE: I was blocked from asking Keir Starmer a question. This is what I wanted to say SO, Starmer thought he'd been given a political gift horse after Farage decided to veer away from the ranting gripe-fest that has made him popular and actually comment on economics. The PM said Farage's policies would create a huge deficit (£50-80 billion) with Truss-style chaos. My question would be – who does Starmer think is listening, among the rabid anti-migrant ranks (the ones he's been openly courting)? These are folk who were happy to trash the entire economy for a blue passport and some xenophobia. Starmer's gift horse is a political turkey – like the one Brexiters voted for… Amanda Baker Edinburgh THANK to Robin McAlpine for taking our Scottish Government and its processes to task (All the reasons why approving Flamingo Land's plan is wrong, May 27). Can I add a wee bit to the arguments? Robin failed to mention one of the 'voices behind the throne' – Scottish Enterprise. The 'arm's length' government body renewed its exclusivity agreement with Flamingo Land (for the second time) just in time for the developer to lodge its appeal at the end of December last year. However, Scottish Enterprise seems to be a law unto itself AND has no remit to consider communities or our environment. Willie Oswald Blanefield RECENT statements by Bono and Thom Yorke condemning Benjamin Netanyahu's government as extreme are welcome, but come far too late to carry moral weight. The extremism in question has been entrenched for years – in law, in policy, and in the lived experiences of Palestinians subjected to blockade, occupation, and systemic violence. To speak up only after catastrophe has unfolded is not moral courage; it is moral caution. Thom Yorke's questioning of why Hamas has not released all remaining hostages is similarly misjudged. It fails to reckon with the parallel reality of Israel's own extrajudicial detentions: namely, thousands of Palestinians held without charge or trial, many of them children, activists, or people merely caught in the gears of occupation. Calls for accountability must run in both directions if they are to carry credibility. READ MORE: Nigel Farage denies Gaza genocide and backs weapons exports to Israel The goal must not be a mere halt to hostilities that locks in injustice with a quieter tone. A political stand-off where we say 'we've gone too far, let's just stay here' would condemn future generations to a fragile, poisoned peace. What's needed is something more demanding and transformative: – the safe return of all hostages and detainees held without due process, regardless of nationality; – the dismantling of illegal settlements and a full withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territory; – international reparative investment to rebuild the homes, hospitals, water systems, and lives shattered by siege and bombardment; – and most crucially, a truth and reconciliation process, grounded in justice, equality, and shared humanity. Only this kind of reckoning can break the cycle of vengeance and ideology. And only a peace unsullied by religious nationalism – of any and all hues – can be called just. Ron Lumiere via email
The Herald Scotland
26-05-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
No Brexit 'surrender' and the nightmare is not dead
Sadly, however, the Brexit nightmare (we might as well be specific about the type of dream) is very far from over. And most of the self-harm inflicted by Brexiters on the UK will remain very much in place even if all of what is planned in the agreement between the Labour Government and the EU transpires. That is not to say there are not very welcome things in the agreement. It is just to highlight the very small scale of the mitigation of the Brexit damage that Labour has decided to pursue and on which it has reached agreement. Details have still to be worked out on the youth mobility scheme and the plans to reduce some of the friction on trade between the UK and its largest trading partner arising from Brexit. However, the UK Government has put a figure on the expected economic benefit from the agreement. It estimates the measures agreed with the EU will boost annual UK gross domestic product by around £9 billion by 2040. This is a fillip of around 0.3%. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has calculated the cost of Brexit at around 4%. That is the key comparison to put what the Labour Government has agreed in perspective. OBR chairman Richard Hughes said in spring 2023 of Brexit's effect: 'We think that in the long run it reduces our overall output by around 4% compared with had we remained in the EU.' It is interesting to note, however, that the effect of the very small steps Labour has taken to mitigate a tiny portion of the colossal Brexit damage is much greater than the benefit projected from the UK's India trade deal announced earlier this month. Much was made of this Indian deal when it was unveiled, by the Labour Government and many others including those Brexiters who give the impression they long for the bygone days of the British Empire. The UK Government estimates annual GDP will by 2040 be 0.1% higher than it would have been without the India trade deal. While it is interesting this is less than the projected benefits from the EU agreement, it is not really that surprising. After all, countries obviously trade more with others close to them. And it is dispiriting Labour has chosen to seek to mitigate only a small part of the huge Brexit damage. Labour is sticking with the key aspects of the Conservatives' hard Brexit - the ending of frictionless trade and loss of free movement of people between the UK and countries in the European Economic Area. That is not to say what it has agreed with the EU is not a modest positive to anyone interested in mitigating the Brexit damage. Seemingly, that group does not include the Conservatives. As they anticipated the agreement with the EU being announced, the Conservatives declared on May 12: 'Conservatives say no to Starmer's Brexit surrender.' They added: 'Under Kemi Badenoch's leadership, the Conservative Party, including the entire shadow cabinet, have committed to reversing any 'reset' that gives up our hard-won freedoms.' Read more The Conservatives characterised Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's 'so-called reset' as 'an attempt to distract the public from his chaotic economic plans and the damage this Labour Government is doing to Britain'. This is pretty rich, coming from the party which delivered the UK's hard Brexit. The main criticism that could be aimed at the Labour Government, of course, is that it should not be pottering about in the foothills and should actually just launch a concerted drive to get the UK back into the European single market as soon as possible. What is needed is the reinstatement of frictionless trade and return of free movement of people between the UK and EEA. In the meantime, what Labour is doing is certainly not a 'betrayal'. The plans agreed with the EU are woefully small but they will benefit, rather than harm, the country. They cover some important areas. The drive to make trading in 'agri-food' less difficult will be most welcome to companies in this sector which have been tied in knots by the post-Brexit bureaucracy inflicted on the UK by former Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson's Brexit deal. People travelling from the UK to other European countries will be relieved at being able to avoid long queues by having the opportunity to make greater use of electronic passport gates. Those with dogs and cats will benefit from the 'pet passports'. And the moves around mutual recognition of professional qualifications, while the overall impact is small, will make a big difference to people in the affected sectors. The greatest positives, however, are surely around the clawing back of some opportunities for young people to work, study, live and travel abroad that were taken away by Brexit. Broad agreement around a youth mobility scheme between the UK and EU represents major progress. It will not offer young people what they had before the Brexit folly but it is an important step forward, as is exploration of the UK rejoining the Erasmus+ scheme which offers such valuable opportunities to study abroad. Labour needs to go much further, for the good of the country, to mitigate the enormous damage from Brexit. However, at least it has made a start and last week's agreement was certainly, as far as it went, good news.
Spectator
21-05-2025
- Business
- Spectator
The battle over fishing is a sideshow
So far, so routine. Labour wants to update and if possible upgrade the United Kingdom's arrangements with our immediate neighbour and by far our biggest trading partner, the European Union. As any new government would. The recent destabilisation of world trade adds urgency to the task. So our government goes to Brussels and (after the customary silly European 'to the wire' theatrics) hammers out what looks like a sensible improvement on the existing unnecessarily irksome restrictions and procedures. The deal involves – inevitably – a few concessions on both sides (we concede a bit on fishing) but overall looks modestly advantageous for us and for them. A thoroughly workmanlike result. As governments are wont to do, ours somewhat exaggerates the scale of the achievement, but is entitled to take some satisfaction from the result. Polling suggests that a majority of the British population believe a new EU deal will have a positive effect on the UK economy. Lord Rose of Monewden (former boss of Marks and Spencer) is enthusiastic. 'It has to be a win,' he tells Times Radio. And – oh sweet Jesus spare us, here we go – the Tories kick off on Brexit. 'We're becoming a rule-taker from Brussels once again,' snarls their leader, Kemi Badenoch – as if a fair measure of alignment were ever avoidable once Boris Johnson's Brexiters sensibly swerved the 'cold-water Singapore' option. Then 'Former home secretary Suella Braverman says the government has 'let down our fishing community'', reports the BBC. And the easing of restrictions on youth mobility? 'Very concerning,' says Badenoch. Summing up (before the details of the deal have even been announced), the leader of the opposition has given us the Conservative verdict: 'This isn't a reset, it's a surrender.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Andrew Marr Slates 'Ludicrous, Offensive And Unpatriotic' Brexit Backlash To New EU Deal
Andrew Marr has torn into the 'Brexit right' who have described the UK's new EU deal as a 'betrayal'. Prime minister Keir Starmer has said the agreement – which ensure closer ties with the bloc – will be 'good for our jobs, good for our bills and good for our borders'. But the Tories have called it a Brexit 'surrender', while Reform UK's Sarah Pochin dubbed it a 'complete betrayal of Brexit' and Boris Johnson described it as a 'sellout'. Their remarks were completely dismissed on Tonight with Andrew Marr, when the LBC presenter said: 'I don't get hot under the collar about much, but I'm getting hot this evening. 'It is at the ludicrous, offensive and unpatriotic language that's being thrown around by the Brexit right against this new deal with the EU.' He said most of this rage comes down to Starmer's decision to extend the same fishing deal first struck by Johnson for another 12 years. 'This is a deal that should make the whole country better off, bring good industrial jobs, give us better energy security and in the shops, more choice and lower prices,' Marr said. 'It will make it easier – we hope – to get through passport controls and to do deals to help combat illegal migration. 'So – betrayal? Fishing accounts for 0.03% of our output and the deal will anyway make it easier for British fishermen to sell their produce abroad. 'Talking about surrender and betrayal is the language not of deal making but of war and that's deranged. We're not at war with the European Union and France, we have been negotiating with them.' 'The Brexiters have cost our economy – that is you and me – around 4% of our GDP according to the Office of Budget Responsibility.' Comparing the war analogies used by the Brexit right to childhood comics, he said: 'Looking around me this evening, it seems to me that many of my fellow Britons haven't grown up by a day.' Andrew Marr is "hot under the collar at the ludicrous, offensive & unpatriotic language that's being thrown around by the brexit right... talking about surrender & betrayal... is the language of war, & that's deranged..."# — Haggis_UK 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 (@Haggis_UK) May 19, 2025 Victoria Derbyshire Trolls Richard Holden Over Business Support For UK-EU Deal: 'Are They All Wrong?' Labour Minister's Response To Boris Johnson's Takedown Of New EU Deal Is Dripping In Sarcasm Boris Johnson Criticised The UK-EU Deal And People Reacted Exactly As You'd Expect
The Guardian
20-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on City deregulation: a recipe for recklessness
In its desire to ensure the City of London remains attractive after Brexit, the Treasury seems to have forgotten one of the major lessons of the 2008 financial crisis: when regulation is lax, risks accumulate. This month, it launched a consultation about whether it was time to lighten the rules governing alternative asset managers, including private equity and hedge funds, in the belief that doing so will boost growth. There is little evidence to support this idea, and every reason to think it could exacerbate systemic risks. The proposal is consistent with Rachel Reeves's belief that expanding the financial sector will deliver economic prosperity. The chancellor has suggested that post-crisis regulations went 'too far'. Those regulations included an EU directive targeting alternative investment funds. Before 2008, these funds operated mostly in the dark. There was no means of systematically tracking the leverage they were using, nor the dangers this might pose. Under the EU rules, leveraged funds managing €100m or more in assets had to comply with strict reporting requirements and hold enough capital to absorb losses. The Treasury is now considering lifting that €100m threshold to £5bn, which would exempt many funds from the full list of EU rules. It will fall to the Financial Conduct Authority to decide which rules to apply. This is troubling. Ms Reeves has instructed the FCA to encourage financial 'risk-taking', and the regulator has boasted about slashing 'red tape'. Both sound like recipes for recklessness. Though the marketplace for private equity and hedge funds was too small to cause a crisis back in 2008, it has since tripled in size. Many private equity funds have started borrowing from shadow banks, which aren't subject to the same regulations or capital requirements as normal banks. Others have begun taking on even more debt than usual. The Bank of England raised the alarm about these risky practices in 2023, and has suggested that mainstream banks may be unwittingly exposed to the industry. These are reasons for more oversight, not less. If the FCA loosens the rules, fund managers will have got their way. They lobbied to have the EU directive watered down in 2010, and the UK was one of the few countries to oppose the rules. Then, as now, the government wanted to protect the City, believing it to be a goose that lays golden eggs. This antipathy towards financial regulation was a prelude to the 'Singapore on Thames' worldview promoted by Brexiters. Hedge fund and private equity managers donated lavishly to their cause. A study of Electoral Commission data by the academics Théo Bourgeron and Marlène Benquet revealed that these fund managers donated nearly £7.4m to the leave campaign, and just £1.25m to remain. The Treasury seems to think that unless the City gets what it wants, Britain may lose its fund managers to countries such as Luxembourg. There are many reasons to be wary of liberalising finance. One is that it will hinder, rather than help, economic growth. Research suggests that once the sector exceeds a certain size, it starts to become a drag on growth and productivity. A study from the University of Sheffield found that the UK lost out on roughly three years of average GDP growth between 1995 and 2015 thanks to its bloated financial sector. Watering down regulations might be helpful for fund managers. It is hard to see who else would benefit.
