{"id":590707,"date":"2025-11-24T12:06:17","date_gmt":"2025-11-24T12:06:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/590707\/"},"modified":"2025-11-24T12:06:17","modified_gmt":"2025-11-24T12:06:17","slug":"calling-out-brexit-in-the-budget-is-easy-fixing-it-is-th","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/590707\/","title":{"rendered":"Calling out Brexit in the Budget is easy. Fixing it is th…"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Government must be bolder. It needs to go further and faster and not be paralysed by fear of Reform or by those still fighting the battles of 2016. The public are ahead of the politicians on this \u2013 they can see the costs in their jobs, their shops, their bills, and their children\u2019s opportunities.\u00a0<\/p>\n

There has quite clearly been a shift in the Government\u2019s stance on the \u2018B-word\u2019. At last month\u2019s Labour Party Conference, and in recent public statements, ministers have begun explicitly acknowledging the economic damage inflicted by leaving the EU. Until now, the word was used rarely, if ever \u2013 a taboo term across Westminster. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and virtually the entire political class have long known the damage leaving the European Union has done, but they were hesitant to articulate it for fear of the political fallout.<\/p>\n

Brexit: a 4 per cent drop in the UK economy<\/p>\n

The Office for Budget Responsibility has been consistent: leaving the EU will reduce the size of the UK economy by around 4 per cent and cut trade intensity by roughly 15 per cent in the long run. These are not abstract academic projections \u2013 they mean lost opportunities, higher costs, and real impacts on people\u2019s lives. This is the reality we are living with, and only now is the Government beginning to face up to what the public has known for some time.<\/p>\n

This change must be welcomed \u2013 but with caution. One reason is obvious: a second \u2018B-word\u2019 is looming<\/a>. The Budget. Rachel Reeves is already laying the groundwork for the tough and unpopular choices she will inevitably announce \u2013 and she wants Brexit to take some of the blame.<\/p>\n

And rightly so. If you are going to speak of the damage, you must be honest about where the responsibility lies. But it is not acceptable to acknowledge the harm without offering solutions to undo as much of it as we can.<\/p>\n

Progress being made with a Brexit \u201creset\u201d<\/p>\n

The Government\u2019s \u2018reset\u2019 with the EU is undoubtedly a step forward. The UK\u2013EU Summit last May showed a willingness to move forward together. And for many sectors, progress is being made \u2013 albeit too slowly<\/a>.<\/p>\n

An eventual veterinary agreement would remove much of the paperwork and cost associated with trading agri-food with the EU \u2013 one of the industry\u2019s greatest demands. Returning to the EU\u2019s internal electricity market would replace the inefficient trading systems we currently have, which are costing hundreds of millions of pounds a year \u2013 costs ultimately passed on to consumers. Linking our carbon trading system back to the EU\u2019s \u2013 which the UK helped to design \u2013 would remove the need for the punishing carbon border taxes on goods traded between the UK and EU, which are due to come in next year.<\/p>\n

All of this is welcome. But \u2013 and it is a big but \u2013 these steps alone will not reverse the long-term damage. They are fine-tuning mechanisms, not economic transformation.<\/p>\n

\"shutterstock<\/p>\n

So, what must come next?<\/p>\n

First, we need a clear, staged strategy to return the UK to the heart of Europe. At the European Movement, we have long advocated a step-by-step approach \u2013 ambitious, deliberate, and honest with the public. We know UK\u2013EU summits will become annual events. They should not be photo opportunities but milestones. Each should deliver specific progress: on market access, smoother trade in goods and services, and sector-by-sector reintegration. We should be thinking not just about the next summit, but the one after that, and the one after that \u2013 each taking us closer to where we need to be.<\/p>\n

Second, the British public must be able to see and feel the benefits. It is no longer enough to simply promise improved trade. People need to see jobs created, exports growing, household energy bills falling, festivals and sport enriched by easier travel, and professional careers no longer held back by red tape. Unless the gains are visible and tangible, any policy will lack legitimacy.<\/p>\n

Third \u2013 and most importantly \u2013 we must recognise that the most powerful changes lie deeper than incremental fixes. For real, transformational benefit, we must rebuild access to the single market \u2013 not just for goods, but for services and people: professionals, artists, musicians, touring performers, universities, and researchers. These human and economic links matter as much as the numbers. And we must work towards a UK\u2013EU customs territory. That does not mean automatically re-joining the Customs Union, but it does mean developing a customs-union-style arrangement.<\/p>\n

Final thought: Brexit and the Budget<\/p>\n

In short, yes, I welcome the Government\u2019s new honesty about the economic damage of leaving the EU. It is overdue. But if Ministers are serious about that damage, then words are not enough<\/a>. The Government must be bolder. It needs to go further and faster and not be paralysed by fear of Reform or by those still fighting the battles of 2016. The public are ahead of the politicians on this \u2013 they can see the costs in their jobs, their shops, their bills, and their children\u2019s opportunities. So let us tell the truth about where the blame lies \u2013 and then have the courage to fix it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Government must be bolder. It needs to go further and faster and not be paralysed by fear…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":590708,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5226],"tags":[802,748,2000,299,5187,1699,4884,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-590707","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-brexit","8":"tag-brexit","9":"tag-britain","10":"tag-eu","11":"tag-europe","12":"tag-european","13":"tag-european-union","14":"tag-great-britain","15":"tag-uk","16":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115604593395115950","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590707","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=590707"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/590707\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/590708"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=590707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=590707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=590707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}