Northern Sky

Alastair Campbell, "I will say to Zia Yusuf and his friend Nigel Farage" "Brexit has taken 6-8% out of economy" "If we had not left, the Chancellor today would have had £90 billion more to spend" "He could have doubled the defence budget" Fiona Bruce, "That is a projection Alastair, no one can be sure about that" Alastair Campbell, "And added 50% to the health budget as well" "The people who gave us Brexit now want to give you another set of false promises" "Do not fall for them because they are a bunch of conmen. They're being found out. And its one reason why Nigel Farage will never be Prime Minister of this country" My view: Fiona Bruce was quick to dismiss Campbell’s figures as “a projection”. But that shouldn’t be a way to shut down the argument. Campbell was making a point about what Brexit has cost the country: on his figures, a 6–8% hit to the economy means around £90 billion less for the Chancellor to spend—enough, he said, to double the defence budget or increase health spending by 50%. And remember what Nigel Farage was saying in 2016: that even without a trade deal, Britain would be better off than it was then. The evidence points the other way. The OBR estimates that Brexit will leave UK productivity around 4% lower than it would have been inside the EU; other studies put the economic hit higher. That means we’re poorer than we would have been had we stayed. So yes, these are estimates—but the claims made by Brexit’s champions were projections too. Bruce’s caveat shouldn’t obscure the central question Campbell raised: how much has Brexit cost us, and what could that money have done for the country?

George Monbiot explains why the UK should rejoin the EU, "There's a reason why Russia tried to intervene in the Brexit vote, they knew that it would harm the UK and the EU if we left" "They were very clear about that and boy have they been proved right" "It has damaged our economic life, our social and cultural life" "Wales alone has lost £1 billion net in regional and social funding which it would have received from the EU" "And it has greatly weakened the opportunities particularly for young people, to work abroad, live abroad, to have the freedoms we had before" "We could rejoin the Customs Union, or the Single Market, but if we did that alone we would be rule takers, we have to accept whatever the EU handed down because we would not be at the table negotiating and making decisions alongside other nations" "As an audience member pointed out, yes the EU is changing. But that's not a reason not to rejoin, but that's a reason to be there in case it changes into a direction we don't like. We can help it be the kind of EU that we want it to be" "I don't think there's any option but to rejoin fully" My view: Brexit was sold as a way to take back control. In practice, it has often meant giving up influence over decisions that still affect us. Our businesses have to navigate rules shaped in Brussels, but Britain has no vote in setting them. That is not meaningful sovereignty; it is distance from the table. Rejoining would give the UK a voice in the institutions where shared rules are debated and agreed. It would also restore a closer, more predictable relationship with our largest nearby market, making it easier for businesses to trade, invest and plan. Those gains would not erase every problem facing the country, but they would remove barriers we chose to put in our own way. The case is about more than trade. It is about making it easier for people to study, work and build lives across Europe; cooperating on research, energy, climate and security; and giving communities and regions access to shared opportunities. These are practical freedoms and partnerships that matter in people’s everyday lives. A halfway arrangement could reduce some friction, but it would leave Britain following many common rules without full representation in shaping them. If the UK wants influence over the direction of European cooperation, membership is the route that provides it. Rejoining would not mean surrendering every national choice; it would mean choosing to make some decisions together, with a seat, a vote and the ability to argue for the outcome we want. The question is not whether the EU is perfect. It is whether Britain is better placed to shape its future from within, alongside its neighbours, or to stand outside while decisions with consequences for us are made without us. After the experience of Brexit, there is a strong case for choosing influence, cooperation and closer ties again. And since Britain left, no other EU member state has followed it out. Instead, the Union has grown to 27 members, while 10 aspiring members are currently in the accession process. That does not prove the EU is perfect or that membership suits every country. But it does show that countries see real value in joining: access to a huge shared market, stronger economic links and greater stability. European Commission They are not signing up because the EU has no problems; they are choosing to take part in a shared project that can bring investment, opportunity and a stronger voice in decisions affecting their future. If countries across Europe are working to join, Britain should ask why it chose to walk away, and whether standing outside has made us better placed to shape what comes next.