NewzIntel.com

Category: Brexit

  • MIL-OSI Global: Could Elon Musk’s government takeover happen in the UK? A constitutional law expert’s view

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor University

    It has been less than a month since Donald Trump retook the Oval Office. But with dozens of executive orders, every day has brought substantial change.

    While Trump claims he has a democratic mandate to cut government waste, it is the unelected Elon Musk who has been behind the most radical changes. Musk, the world’s richest man, joined the US government as head of the new Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which Trump established by executive order.

    Trump and Doge have begun dismantling government agencies, introduced widespread recruitment freezes, and withheld billions of dollars in federal funds – including freezing foreign aid and dismantling USAid. Through Doge, Musk has also gained access to IT and payment systems in the US Treasury and other major departments.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    Their actions have not been without legal challenge. A judge issued a temporary order restricting Musk from accessing the Treasury’s files due to the risk of exposing sensitive data. In response, Trump has expanded Musk’s power further, instructing government officials to cooperate with Doge.

    It already appears that Trump is prepared to defy court orders related to these changes. The US is on the cusp of a constitutional showdown.

    A key question for the UK is whether something similar could happen here. In theory, the answer is yes – but it would be difficult for anybody to enact.

    There have been ongoing concerns, including some raised by the current government, around the size of the UK government and the budget deficit. Politicians from the Reform party are already saying that Britain needs to adopt a Musk-style approach to cut government waste.

    Compared to other systems of government, UK prime ministers have almost unparalleled power to change existing, and establish new, government departments as they see fit. So it would be well within the gift of the prime minister to establish a new department like Doge – though there could be limits to its power to change things like national spending, given the need for budgetary approval by parliament.

    There is also plenty of precedent for private citizens like Musk to work in the UK government. This could be as a special adviser: a temporary “political” civil servant who advises the government and is appointed under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Previous examples include Alastair Campbell (Tony Blair’s spokesman) and Dominic Cummings (Boris Johnson’s senior adviser). While cabinet ministers hire their special advisers, the prime minister approves all appointments.

    Alternatively, civilians can be brought more directly into government as ministers. Under constitutional convention, a member of the UK government is a member of either the Commons or Lords. Someone who is not an elected politician can be appointed to the Lords (and a ministerial role) by the prime minister. Rishi Sunak did this when he made David Cameron foreign secretary, as did Keir Starmer with businessman-turned-minister for prisons James Timpson.

    There have even been debates in recent years over whether this convention of government ministers needing to be members of parliament can be dispensed with, given it lacks legal enforcement. But this raises questions about how you afford parliament opportunities to scrutinise the work of such ministers, if they are not even in the Lords.



    Read more:
    Plans for ministers who aren’t in parliament raise concerns for UK democracy – constitutional expert

    Constitutional limits

    However, the kind of actions that Trump and Musk are currently undertaking could not strictly pan out the same way under the UK’s constitutional arrangements.

    While it does not have executive orders in the same way as the US, there are means for the UK government to administratively act without passing legislation through parliament.

    The government’s power can be exercised through orders in council via the monarch. These can either be via statutory orders (where the power has been granted through an act of parliament) or prerogative powers.

    The prerogative refers to powers that government ministers have, which do not require the consent of parliament. For example, to enter international treaties or wars, or the ability to call an election.

    The monarch also retains some prerogative powers – for example, to appoint or dismiss a prime minister, and to summon or prorogue (end a session of) parliament. But by convention, the monarch fulfils these functions in a ceremonial and symbolic capacity – without input in the decisions. In reality, they merely follow the advice of the prime minister on these matters.

    Importantly, prerogative powers can only be used when legislation does not exist to the contrary – and the UK government cannot arbitrarily change prerogative powers or create new ones.

    President Trump signals that there is more to come from Doge.

    One way a Musk-style takeover would struggle in the UK is if a proposed change affected primary legislation and left it redundant. It has been established since 1610 that prerogative powers cannot be used to change or make law without parliament.

    To give hypothetical examples: if the UK government tried to exercise its powers in a way which ran contrary to the International Development Act, failed to fulfil a legally promised government function, or went against human rights obligations, they would be doing so contrary to UK constitutional principles – not least parliamentary sovereignty, separation of powers, and the rule of law.

    Should this happen, the courts can intervene. This was tested in Miller 1, the legal case over whether the prime minister alone had the power to leave the EU, or whether parliamentary approval was needed. It was decided that the government could not rely on its prerogative powers to trigger Brexit without parliament’s approval, as this would change primary law.

    And, as was clear when it came to Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament, the Supreme Court will nullify government action which it deems unconstitutional.



    Read more:
    Q+A: Supreme Court rules Boris Johnson’s prorogation of UK parliament was unlawful – so what happens now?

    In this sense, it is a well-established common law principle that judges will rely on the rule of law to check what the government is doing, and would view parliament as never truly intending to pass any law which would exclude that oversight. Any attempt to legislate to block courts from having that check would be an unconstitutional violation.

    Here, the UK has the advantage of a strong independence of the courts. Since 2006, judicial appointments have been the responsibility of an independent commission. There is also a separate, independent selection process for the Supreme Court. This effectively bars the prime minister from changing the composition of the courts in the same way the US president can.

    What if parliament went rogue?

    Some may be minded that, if a reformist government had a majority in parliament and existing laws were preventing change in the UK, then it could easily change the law through an act of parliament. This was the risk of the now-defunct Rwanda plan, where the government effectively tried, through legislation, to overrule the Supreme Court and send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

    Should this have continued, it would probably have faced legal challenges at the European court of human rights. Here is where efforts to remove the UK from the European convention on human rights, or to repeal the Human Rights Act, would have become consequential.



    Read more:
    How the bill to declare Rwanda a ‘safe’ country for refugees could lead to a constitutional crisis

    Of course, even with the strongest majorities, backbench MPs do not always vote with their government, and would be less likely to do so if the leader was attempting to do something extreme, unprincipled and unconscionable.

    We would be in relatively uncharted constitutional waters if the prime minister then ignored a Supreme Court ruling. But while rarely used, there are mechanisms available to parliament in such cases to use motions of no confidence in the government to instigate change to the executive.

    Unless the law is radically changed, the machinery of parliament, with the checks and balances of the Supreme Court, would make a US-style overhaul challenging – if not, theoretically, impossible. But while it is not codified into one text, the UK does still have a constitution and the safeguards that come with it – as well as hundreds of years of convention to back it up.

    Stephen Clear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Could Elon Musk’s government takeover happen in the UK? A constitutional law expert’s view – https://theconversation.com/could-elon-musks-government-takeover-happen-in-the-uk-a-constitutional-law-experts-view-249544

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Magical Thinking in Whitehall and Brussels

    Source: Traditional Unionist Voice – Northern Ireland

    The following article by TUV leader and North Antrim MP Jim Allister recently appeared in the News Letter.

    Magical Thinking in Whitehall and Brussels

    Newsletter readers may well recall my article of 14thJanuary in which I explained why I would force a vote on the Official Control Amendment Regulations later that day. A debate in the House of Lords on 29thJanuary has since shed further light on the innovative aspect of these regulations, which should be understood by all unionists as we approach 24 February when the Government will begin to apply new aspects of the Irish Sea Border on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.

    On the one hand, in accommodating the GB side of the Irish Sea border, these regulations are implicated in giving effect to all the border difficulties with which we are increasingly familiar, the disenfranchisement of 1.9 million UK citizens, not just in relation to one law, or 300 laws, but 300 areas of law, and all the attendant economic disruption and disinheritance that arises from the EU disrespecting the territorial integrity of the UK.

    On the other hand, however, the regulations present a new difficulty for the Government. The justification for the construction of the Irish Sea Border was the need to avoid having Border Control Posts on the UK-ROI land border. Its champions claimed that this was required by the Belfast Agreement notwithstanding the fact that the text of the Agreement says no such thing, and notwithstanding the fact that insisting on their alternative Irish Sea border solution has made them the instigators of the biggest reversal of democracy in the history of the western world, violating three central provisions of the Belfast Agreement. The Regulations, however, make provision for the border to be moved to the Irish Sea, while dispensing with infrastructure on the border by means of allowing checks to take place away from Border Control Posts and making provision for inland Border Control Posts located away from the border, (see regulations 14, 7, 11, 16 and 17).

    In doing so, they remove the justification for moving the customs and phytosanitary (SPS) border from the international border. Speaking in the Lords on 29 January, Baroness Hayman confirmed: 

    ‘The instrument (the Regulations) also provides the power to allow for inland border control posts …’

    She further stated, in an attempt to placate concerns about this move: 

    ‘…this instrument only provides provision to be made for documentary, identity and physical controls to be undertaken at places other than border control posts or control points, and that we have robust, evidence-based risk modelling that can place SPS into categories based on the inherent risk that the product poses to animal, food, biosecurity and public health.’

    The use of the word ‘only’ in this instance is interesting because the checks that take place at border control posts are documentary, identity and physical checks!

    The political implications of, first, moving the border to the Irish Sea, supposedly on the basis that we could not have a hard border across the island of Ireland, only to then make provision for that border without infrastructure, were then spelt out very clearly by Baroness Hoey and Lord Morrow but the minister did not respond.

    Had the Minister attempted to defend this arrangement she might have said that while the UK is content to have a border with no hard infrastructure for goods moving from the Republic and wider EU into the UK, the EU is not prepared to have such a border with respect to goods moving the from Northern Ireland into the Republic. Now that the new regulations are in place, though, demonstrating the option of a better way, this is an increasingly weak defence.

    Going forward the Government has to explain why, knowing: i) that such a solution is workable, and ii) that the proportion of goods entering the Republic from Northern Ireland in 2020 was tiny (only worth 0.003% of EU GDP in 2020), they agree with a border ‘solution’ that is giving the EU the right to both make Northern Ireland an EU colony in 300 areas of laws and then imposing a hard border interrupting a far greater flow of goods from one part of the UK, GB, to another, NI. This is not only absurdly disproportionate but also deeply dishonourable, sacrificing key aspects of the citizenship of its own people and disrespecting the territorial integrity of the UK.

    In this the EU also faces real difficulties. Given its stated commitment to democracy in both its accession criteria, requiring that candidate countries demonstrate the ‘stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities’, and in its aid policy, why is the EU needlessly threatening the stability of our democratic institutions? Its intervention is both instigating the most pompous act of colonial disenfranchisement since democracy became a norm of western society and the removal of cross community consent, the most important political protection for minorities – in certain critical contexts.

    Quite apart from demonstrating that far from representing ‘magical thinking’, running a border, while removing hard infrastructure from that border, constitutes government policy, the Official Controls Amendment Regulations remind us that the first such solution was advanced to give effect to Brexit by the EU itself. Mutual Enforcement was developed by Sir Jonathan Faull who served as EU Commission ‘Director General of the Task Force for Strategic Issues related to the UK Referendum’, together with Prof JH Weiler and Prof Daniel Sarmiento. Providing a means of delivering Brexit that protects the integrity of both the UK and the EU Single Markets without a hard border, Mutual Enforcement presents the solution proposed by my EU Withdrawal Bill currently before Parliament.

    Instead of pressing ahead with the further needless division of our country into two with the arrival of the red lane parcels border on 31st March, the Government should adopt my Bill.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Is Tesla’s sales slump down to Elon Musk?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Obiegbu, Lecturer in Experiential Marketing and Management, Bournemouth University

    Frederic Legrand – COMEO/Shutterstock

    Over the past couple of years, the seemingly steady rightward drift of Elon Musk has culminated in actions and statements that have sparked broad controversy. Musk – visionary CEO of Tesla, SpaceX and founder of X Corp – is a man on a mission to get humanity to Mars. He is also the wealthiest person on the planet.

    Most recently, these controversies include his endorsement and support of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, gestures interpreted as a Nazi salute during Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration and accusations of election interference.

    In January, sales of Tesla cars slumped across five European countries – the UK, France, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. Sales were down too in California – the US state with the largest car market. And according to at least one survey, Musk and his politics could be a significant part of the problem.

    When CEOs are in the public eye, their personal brands and values, and those of the companies they represent, can be hard to separate. Our research has found that, often, human identity and reputation will influence the CEO’s brand identity and reputation – and vice versa. As a human being, Musk’s personal actions and statements directly affect the companies he represents. His high-profile persona makes it difficult to separate the two.

    This is why Musk’s controversial comments and political endorsements have alienated some Tesla consumers, particularly in progressive markets such as Europe and California. In these places, Tesla has historically been popular with environmentally aware consumers. When the profiles of a CEO and his or her brand are not aligned, it’s a problem that can undermine the brand value of both the CEO and the company.

    Artists, politicians, CEOs and other public figures tend to attract fans whose personal values can at times deviate from those of the figurehead. Where this happens, devoted fans might be left at an impasse on how to respond to these figures or the products of companies or businesses they are associated with.

    A common misconception is that smitten fans are too obsessed to express their distaste. Instead, they are likely to follow blindly and defend the actions of their heroes. Intense actions of “fan armies” on social media platforms have not helped with these assumptions.

    But in fact, our research has shown that devoted fans can be critical. We found they are more likely than less devoted consumers to respond in extreme opposition when they feel betrayed by the behaviour of personalities they identify with or hold in high regard.

    In the case of personalities like Musk, whose companies produce physical products, loyal fans and consumers could respond in a number of ways. A few hardcore Tesla fans and Musk loyalists might dismiss critiques against his behaviour as attacks against free speech or their own beliefs. They are likely to continue buying Teslas regardless – and may even adjust their own beliefs to align with those of their “hero”.

    Out of step

    For other consumers, owning a Tesla may no longer signal purely their beliefs about sustainability. There may be a nod to political or ideological affiliations that do not align with their own.

    Some consumers may want to dissociate with Tesla if Musk’s behaviour is seen as problematic in their social circle. However, as a purchase requiring high involvement and commitment, switching from Tesla to another EV might be difficult. The recent trend of Tesla owners placing apology stickers on their vehicles is a way of negotiating the tension between owning a Tesla and the behaviour of the CEO they do not agree with.

    The stickers provide a means of separating themselves from Musk’s actions while managing the fear of being perceived negatively within their social groups. This is likely to result in a gradual brand erosion rather than an immediate sales drop.

    On the other hand, customers of companies such as craft beer brand BrewDog – a firm that has in the past been accused of fostering a culture of fear – may be more responsive to bad CEO behaviour. They at least can switch to an alternative brand at little cost. (BrewDog, for its part, apologised and said it was “committed to doing better”.)

    And if Remain voters dislike inventor James Dyson’s stance on Brexit, they might be annoyed but still able to justify keeping a mid-value item like a vacuum cleaner (that is used privately in the home after all) until it breaks, perhaps switching for future purchases rather than abandoning outright.

    Consumers can respond in a variety of ways when a figurehead CEO disappoints them. But brands taking blind, uncritical loyalty as a given – even from devoted fans – do so at their peril.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Is Tesla’s sales slump down to Elon Musk? – https://theconversation.com/is-teslas-sales-slump-down-to-elon-musk-248727

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump tariffs: there may be silver linings in the trade war storm clouds

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Scott Mahadeo, Senior Lecturer in Macroeconomics, University of Portsmouth

    bella1105/Shutterstock

    US tariffs – both threatened and imposed – on trade partners including China, Canada, Mexico and the EU quickly set off waves of retaliatory measures. The latest commodities in the sights of president Donald Trump are steel and aluminium – with tariffs of 25% announced for all imports. But not only do these taxes disrupt well-established trade flows, they ignite concerns over the very future of globalisation.

    Yet amid this uncertainty, it’s possible that there may be a silver lining. Trump may inadvertently be paving the way for a realignment of trade relationships and the emergence of new economic blocs. Such partnerships could foster more resilient and regionally focused economic cooperation.

    Trump’s decision to levy tariffs on its major trading partners disrupts the fundamental tenets of the gravity model of trade. According to this theory, trade between two nations is largely determined by their economic size and proximity. For instance, introducing tariffs to the close economic relationship between the US and Canada, underpinned by their shared border, effectively increases the distance between the two by raising costs and reducing the volume of bilateral trade.

    However, these disruptions can inadvertently encourage diversification of trade relationships. As companies and governments seek to mitigate the risks associated with tariffs, they may begin to explore new markets and alternative supply chains. This could ultimately lead to a more dispersed and – potentially – more stable global trade system.

    Yet as Trump continues to test the limits of his power, he is learning it is not so easy to defy gravity. Already, the president has dialled down tariffs on Canada and Mexico, while China has struck back with retaliatory measures.

    One positive spin-off of the trade war may be the reinforcement of regional alliances. With traditional trade flows disrupted, countries are increasingly incentivised to strengthen ties with neighbouring economies.

    North American outlook

    Canada and Mexico, long considered natural trading partners of the US, might pivot towards deepening their economic cooperation. They may also look to bilateral agreements with other partners as well as seeking new markets, strengthening ties with China and Japan.

    The USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) provides a strong foundation for trade. But attempts to dismantle this arrangement could see Canada and Mexico accelerating efforts to build closer economic ties with other regions, reducing their exposure to the US market.

    Trump reveals his plans for sweeping steel tariffs on “everybody”.

    Trump’s planned tariffs on steel threaten to undermine the USMCA. After all, it is designed to foster integrated supply chains and low-tariff economic cooperation among the three countries. This is likely to escalate trade tensions across the bloc, forcing a reassessment of the trade agreement’s key terms and destabilising the established relationships.

    European Union outlook

    The imposition of tariffs on the EU could lead to deepening integration among its member states. Faced with new pressures from the US, the EU might accelerate initiatives aimed at consolidating internal trade, harmonising regulations and promoting intra-European supply chains.

    Member states, with France at the forefront, are already advocating for a united response to counteract US protectionism. They hope to signal a strong political commitment to resist the pressures from Trump.

    Asia-Pacific outlook

    China, as the world’s second-largest economy behind the US, may seek to expand its trade relationships in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. As China’s economic growth model is export-led, it may seek stronger partnerships with regional players and invest in new trade agreements. This could potentially give rise to an even more integrated Asian economic community.

    A new economic order

    Whatever else plays out, these tariff wars signal a reordering of the global economic landscape. Such disruptions, though painful in the short term, can create long-term changes that rebalance economic systems. The natural trading partner hypothesis reinforces this view by highlighting how countries with shared cultural, historical and geographical ties are likely to deepen their economic relationships in the face of external shocks.

    Table of US trade

    Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis (2025)
    Author provided

    In this new order, traditional superpowers may find themselves challenged by unified responses from other nations. By imposing tariffs, the US risks isolating itself from these emerging alliances, while its major trading partners may become united in their efforts to counterbalance rising American protectionism.



    Read more:
    Brics: growth of China-led bloc raises questions about a rapidly shifting world order

    The ripple effects of the US tariff row extend well beyond the directly involved countries, with significant implications for global trade networks. For the UK, already coping with the aftermath of Brexit, this new environment offers both challenges and opportunities.

    With US-led protectionism disrupting traditional trade channels, the UK could seize the opportunity to diversify its export markets by forging stronger ties with the EU and digging deeper into its Commonwealth alliances. It could reinforce its position as a hub for international commerce while continuing to cultivate its relationship with the US. Managing Trump is a delicate balancing act for prime minister Keir Starmer, as both are expected to be in office for four years.

    A word of caution – negotiating international trade agreements is a complex and lengthy process. This is the hard lesson learned by the UK. Its trade with the EU (its most important commercial partner) shrank after Brexit, driving the quest for new trading partners and agreements. But these fruits are slow to materialise.

    The UK formally requested accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in February 2021, but only signed the accession protocol in July 2023.

    And we should not forget that in 2024 the UK halted its trade talks with Canada after two years of negotiations, due to disagreements over the standards on some agricultural products.

    Tariffs come with challenges, but they might also be the beginning of a slow and painful change towards a more balanced and robust global economic order.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Trump tariffs: there may be silver linings in the trade war storm clouds – https://theconversation.com/trump-tariffs-there-may-be-silver-linings-in-the-trade-war-storm-clouds-249526

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How smarter greenhouses could improve the UK’s food security

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sven Batke, Associate Head of Research and Knowledge Exchange – Reader in Plant Science, Edge Hill University

    A tomato greenhouse in north-west England. Sven Batke, CC BY-NC-ND

    When was the last time you walked into a supermarket and marvelled at the abundance of exotic fruits and vegetables, even in the dead of winter? This luxury, now an expectation, only became common in the mid-20th century, reaching the UK some decades later.

    Not long ago, winter produce in UK supermarkets was limited; root vegetables like carrots, potatoes, and parsnips, alongside hardy greens such as kale and cabbage. Fruits were even scarcer, mostly apples and pears. Today’s variety owes much to advances in global trade and smarter greenhouses, which help extend growing seasons and bring once seasonal produce to shelves all year round.

    Fast forward just one generation, and now supermarket shelves are stocked with dragon fruit, bananas, coconuts, avocados, and a variety of exotic nuts and vegetables. These items not only hail from the farthest reaches of the globe, but have also been bred to offer consumers unique sensory experiences or health benefits, such as higher concentrations of antioxidants. It’s no surprise that most of these exotic foods are often not grown locally or even within Europe.

    According to the latest government figures from 2023, 53% of the vegetables consumed in the UK are imported, and only 17% of fruits are grown locally. The contrast is stark when you look at exports, which remain relatively small (about 100,000 tonnes in 2023).

    UK food security could be improved by growing more produce inside smart greenhouses.
    Sven Batke, CC BY-NC-ND

    How often do you eat a UK-grown strawberry or tomato outside summer? Many such vegetables come from the Netherlands, Morocco and Spain, while most fruit comes from Colombia, Costa Rica and Brazil. No surprise, given their warmer climates. The UK averages 9-12°C annually, compared to Morocco’s 18-20°C.

    Increasing demand for exotic foods available year-round has made the UK’s food system vulnerable to external market fluctuations. Disruptions, such as trade barriers following Brexit or global hikes in energy prices due to the Ukraine war have placed supply chains under strain.

    Empty supermarket shelves could become more common if we see disruptions in supply chains, putting further pressure on the undervalued domestic growing sector. But could the UK grow more of its own food and reduce reliance on volatile global markets?

    Hi-tech solutions

    Protected horticulture (specifically in the food sector, as opposed to ornamental plants) involves growing fruits and vegetables year-round in controlled environments, such as polytunnels, greenhouses and indoor vertical farms.

    These facilities regulate temperature, humidity and light, and in some cases, even atmospheric gases like CO₂. Water and nutrient inputs are also tightly controlled, reducing waste by up to 95% compared to traditional field-grown methods. This allows year-around protection from the elements. They are often overlooked despite holding the key to solving some of the current food security challenges.



    Read more:
    Four myths about vertical farming debunked by an expert

    As part of the Greenhouse Innovation Consortium, my team of biologists, geographers and I recently mapped over 12,000 greenhouses in Britain. Estimates suggest that around 70% of these structures are more than 40 years old.

    So why haven’t we seen more UK-grown fruits and vegetables on supermarket shelves if we have the technology to produce them? One major reason is the high energy demand of indoor growing, especially in cold and cloudy weather – something we are all too familiar with in the UK. For example, 2024 has seen one of the worse years in total recorded sun hours.

    The UK’s horticulture sector has also received very little government support over the years. There are few incentives for growers to adopt new technology or upgrade infrastructure. Many UK growers still have not adopted technologies like automatic harvest robots or AI-controlled systems, and even simple upgrades like LED growing lights could boost yield by over 50%. However, resource management in this sector requires experience and making these changes is a fine balancing act.

    Most British greenhouses are more than 40 years old so investment is needed to upgrade them.
    Sven Batke, CC BY-NC-ND

    But the future can be bright – if we choose to make it so. To grow more produce all year round without compromising on flavour, the sector needs more investment in local expertise and cutting-edge facilities.

    From precision horticulture to advanced AI-controlled greenhouses, with the right drive and investment, the UK could move towards a more sustainable food production system. Sweden for example is currently investing over £700 million into horticulture.

    While achieving 100% self-sufficiency may not be feasible due to other demands on land, such as housing, conservation, and industry, creating a more resilient and less dependent food sector would benefit everyone (not to mention reducing food miles).

    The UK’s food future doesn’t have to rely on global markets. With investment and innovation, the country can build a resilient, sustainable food system. Year-round demand for exotic produce has exposed supply chain fragility, but fostering domestic growth and technology can change the narrative.

    It’s not about turning back the clock, but about making the most of what the UK has while driving forward the solutions that make sense for the country’s future. The answer is not just more local food. It’s smarter, more resilient food systems that can weather whatever challenges lie ahead.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Sven Batke works together with industry growers and manufactures in the horticulture industry. The work we are doing is part of the Greenhouse Innovation Consortium, which aims to support local growers in the UK.

    – ref. How smarter greenhouses could improve the UK’s food security – https://theconversation.com/how-smarter-greenhouses-could-improve-the-uks-food-security-248719

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The EU was built for another age – here’s how it must adapt to survive

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Francesco Grillo, Academic Fellow, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University

    Shutterstock/gopixa

    To European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, Europe is like a Volkswagen Beetle – an iconic car produced by a once-mighty German manufacturer which has been struggling to adapt to a new world.

    “Europe must shift gears,” she urged in a speech to business executives gathered in Davos, Switzerland at the beginning of the year. Yet, her call to arms failed to raise more than an eyebrow. After all, she has repeated the same call many times since she was elected six years ago. So far, there has been little result.

    The US president, Donald Trump, may now even be tempted to finish off the EU (the most developed of the world’s multilateral organisations) by dividing its members over the single market for trade. This arrangement is the cornerstone upon which the union was built, but can it withstand Trump’s attempts to play European nations off against each other in order to get the best deal for himself?

    The problem is that Trump is simply bringing to its most extreme consequences the weakness of a system that was built for stable times which are long gone. We urgently need a new idea, and it cannot be for a “United States of Europe”. That is a dream from the past that could not be more at odds with Europe’s current political climate.

    Mini unions

    Europe is unable to chart a path forward because it needs unanimity among its member states in order to make any major decision. Votes are not even weighted to reflect the different sizes of each of the club’s members.

    This is a weakness that would gradually cause the deterioration of any international organisation. But in the case of the EU, the crisis is more serious because member states have surrendered part of their decision power. As a result, if the EU cannot move quickly, even member states turn out to be paralysed.

    Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary, has often been singled out as the bad guy especially – this has happened every time the EU has tried to approve sanctions against Russia or aid to Ukraine. But examples of free riding abound even among the founding parties.

    For decades, France has resisted any attempt to reorganise the common agricultural policy that sends a third of the EU’s budget to farmers, many of them French. Italy has halted the ratification of the reform of the European stability mechanism that should protect states from financial instability, out of the assumption among part of the Italian electorate that this may compromise further sovereignty.

    Elsewhere, Germany’s constitutional court has derailed the reform of the EU electoral law that divides the election of the European parliament into a dysfunctional system of 27 national contests, because of the resistance of the German political system to any electoral law which is not proportional.

    We need to find a way to change all this. And the solution cannot be the rather abstract idea of a union that proceeds at different speeds, where the older members are supposed to be part of an inner circle. Nor is it feasible to expect the abolition of unanimous voting for the simple reason that to forgo unanimity, you need a unanimous vote.

    Instead, the EU should become the coordinator of multiple unions, each formed by the member states themselves around specific policies. A union might form around defence, for example, among member states which are ready for such a partnership, such as Poland, the Baltics and Finland.

    Another might bring together countries that wish to collaborate on large projects such as a pan-European high-speed train, or a fully integrated energy market that may allow Italy, France and Spain to save billions of euros and decarbonise more quickly.

    This is not entirely new. Arrangements like the euro and the free circulation of people (the Schengen area) follow this principle. Only a subset of EU nations are part of these projects, and offers have even been extended to join beyond the EU’s borders. Monaco is in the euro, for example, while Norway is in Schengen, despite neither being an EU member state.

    The problem with these unions is that they are incomplete. The complement to the monetary union is a recently reformed “stability pact” that leaves so many loopholes that 11 out of its 20 members do not comply. And even within Schengen, there are still no proper common borders. The result is continuous reciprocal accusations of exporting each other’s illegal migrants.

    The solution here is to fully share the levers within a certain policy area on terms which are more flexible and voluntary for the union’s members.

    The possibility of calm divorce

    Resilience is achieved through adaptability. Therefore, these new arrangements must make divorce between union members possible from the outset – and establish the terms of such a rupture in advance.

    And in the event of an extreme case, the other parties should also be able to ask one of the members to leave their union (so as to avoid being systematically held to ransom by a free rider). The current union treaty does contain a provision (article 50) that enables a member to leave, as the UK did – but if Brexit showed anything, it was that this mechanism has limited use at preventing a divorce from descending into chaos.

    People should always be part of these decisions, of course. When states decide to surrender some of their sovereignty to a larger organisation such as the EU, it changes the nature of the pact between the citizens of a country and the people who make decisions on their behalf. This evident truth has been ignored for decades as the EU has gradually been built from the top down.

    The European Union currently resembles the marriages we once had in Europe (until well into the 20th century), before it was acknowledged that they are a civil (not necessarily religious) contract that can be dissolved through divorce – not some divine construct that can never be undone.

    The marriage between EU countries is blighted by cheating and empty rhetoric. This is an issue we can no longer avoid if Europe wants to do more than just “shift gears”. The EU was the most successful political project of the 20th century. If it wants to continue to be so in the 21st, it has to learn to be flexible. Only those who can adapt survive.

    Francesco Grillo is Director of the think tank Vision. Vision is convenor of three global conferences on the future of the EU, climate change and AI .

    – ref. The EU was built for another age – here’s how it must adapt to survive – https://theconversation.com/the-eu-was-built-for-another-age-heres-how-it-must-adapt-to-survive-248811

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Keir Starmer takes first steps in UK-EU ‘reset’ – can he get the deal he wants?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Magdalena Frennhoff Larsén, Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations, University of Westminster

    It is not unusual for international leaders to be invited to meet with EU heads of state or government at the fringes of the European Council meetings. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has regularly been invited to address the EU leaders. And while Donald Trump was never invited during his first term as US president, his successor Joe Biden was.

    But Keir Starmer’s February 3 visit was significant, because it was the first time since Brexit that a British prime minister was invited to join the EU leaders for their traditional post-summit dinner.

    Even before the UK formally left the EU, while the two parties were negotiating the terms for Brexit, British prime ministers were excluded. Not only were they left out of the formal meetings where the other 27 leaders discussed Brexit, but they were also excluded from the post-summit dinner. This caused frustration in Downing Street, and led to complaints about the UK being sidelined.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    There were rumours that Boris Johnson would be invited to a European Council meeting in 2022, but these remained rumours. And even if UK-EU relations improved under the premiership of Rishi Sunak, it was not until the Labour government’s step-change in the signalling of the need for a Brexit “reset” that a dinner invitation was extended.

    Symbolically, it was important. After eight rather tumultuous years, the UK and EU were having dinner together again. And against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and the changing geopolitical landscape, both parties recognised the need for closer cooperation on security and defence.

    Starmer wants an ambitious security partnership with the EU. European Council president António Costa recognised that there is a great deal that the EU and the UK can do together in terms of defence and addressing global challenges.

    Partners in security

    The idea of a security partnership is not new. Already in the political declaration of 2019, which accompanied the withdrawal agreement, the UK and the EU agreed to negotiate such a partnership, including cooperation on foreign, security, and defence policies.

    However, in his hurry to “get Brexit done”, Boris Johnson decided not to proceed on this track. As a result, the trade and cooperation agreement, which governs the EU-UK relationship, largely omits security cooperation.

    Even without a formal security and defence structure in place, the EU and the UK have worked alongside each other in supporting Ukraine. But the Labour government has repeatedly stressed the need for more formal cooperation arrangements as part of its “reset”. To this end, the foreign secretary, David Lammy, has called for an ambitious and broad-ranging UK-EU security pact.

    For the UK it is a relatively easy way to improve relations and rebuild trust with the EU. The EU and the UK face similar geopolitical challenges and are largely aligned in terms of values and interests on security and defence matters. A more coordinated EU-UK response would have greater impact, whether it is about supporting Ukraine, tackling cross-border crime or increasing energy security.

    It is also an area where the UK can forge closer links with the EU without crossing its red lines on free movement of people, or membership of the customs union or single market. And the UK – as the only major European military power other than France – is an attractive security partner for the EU.

    EU leaders do see potential in such an initiative. Already in the 2022 “strategic compass”, a document which sets out the EU’s security and defence agenda, the EU stressed that it remains open to closer cooperation with the UK.

    This has become even more urgent in light of the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s future engagement with Nato and European security. If Trump makes good on his threat to downsize America’s security role in Europe, the EU needs to strengthen its own defence, and it cannot do so effectively without the UK.

    However, the EU wants to see concrete proposals for what a security pact would look like. It questioned the genuine commitment to the “reset” after the UK rejected the EU’s proposal around a time-limited and visa-based youth mobility scheme – a move that disappointed the EU, for whom the issue was a top priority. The UK government worried that it could be misinterpreted as a return to free movement of people and rejected the proposal.

    While the leaders left the dinner without concrete proposals, they agreed to talk further. There will be an institutional EU-UK summit in the UK in May, where the two parties will discuss what form the deeper security and defence cooperation could take.

    European Council president Costa recognised that there is a new positive energy in the EU-UK relationship. It remains to be seen whether this energy, and the signalling about the UK’s commitment to a reset, will eventually translate into an actual EU-UK rapprochement – something both parties would benefit from. Rebuilding trust takes time – and a dinner invitation should be seen as positive sign in itself.

    Magdalena Frennhoff Larsén does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Keir Starmer takes first steps in UK-EU ‘reset’ – can he get the deal he wants? – https://theconversation.com/keir-starmer-takes-first-steps-in-uk-eu-reset-can-he-get-the-deal-he-wants-249216

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why supermarkets are siding with farmers over inheritance tax

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kamran Mahroof, Associate Professor, Supply Chain Analytics, University of Bradford

    John Gomez/Shutterstock.com

    In recent years, British farmers have faced growing pressures, from Brexit to COVID and the Ukraine war. For some of them you can now add planned inheritance tax (IHT) reforms – announced in the budget last autumn – to that list.

    The proposals to cut certain agricultural reliefs sparked protests by farmers across the UK. Currently, farms benefit from 100% relief on agricultural and business assets, but from 2026 the relief will be capped at £1 million, with excess taxed at 20% (half the usual rate). Exactly how many farms will be affected is not yet clear but estimates range between a quarter and a third.

    Farming associations and the government have clashed over this in recent months. Some sections of the public have backed the protesting farmers and voiced their frustration after the announcement.

    But more recently, there has been support from a different – and unexpected – quarter. Seeing UK supermarkets enter the fray and highlight the concerns of farmers adds fuel to the already heated debate.

    The big chains have long faced accusations of unfair treatment towards farmers, using their might to press suppliers for the lowest prices and reportedly forcing some out of business in the process.

    So what has prompted supermarkets to speak out now? As a supply chain expert, I think there are several possible reasons.

    1. Empty shelves

    Simply put, the pressures on farmers can have far-reaching consequences for supermarket supply chains. A key reason for their support will be to avoid food shortages and empty shelves. There are many examples of supply chain disruptions leading to gaps in stores’ product lines, ultimately affecting the customer experience and supermarket profits.

    UK food supply chains are under increasing pressure. Disruptions such as adverse weather, energy price hikes and even cyberattacks have highlighted the vulnerability of the UK’s food system.

    Farmers have also demonstrated their ability in the past to cause disruption to food supply chains by protesting over cheap imports. Mass and sustained farmer protests could turn off the tap to the UK’s food supply, as happened in the Netherlands in 2022. UK supermarkets will want to avoid this at all costs.

    2. Reliance on imports

    In the event that their IHT is unaffordable (those affected will have ten years to pay the tax, interest free), some farms may be forced to sell up, leading to reduced availability of locally grown produce. Limited supply of domestic produce will increase the dependence on imports, ultimately leading to increased costs for supermarkets (and so for consumers too) as well as uncertainty.

    The UK’s food supply depends on global regions, seasonal shifts and complex sourcing to maintain fresh produce year round. Increased reliance on imports, combined with post-Brexit import charges is neither ideal nor sustainable for supermarkets.

    3. Reduced competition

    Supermarkets have a vested interest in maintaining competitive prices. Fewer agricultural producers essentially means less competition. This could mean supermarkets having less bargaining power with suppliers and a diminished ability to meet consumer demand for variety and quality.

    This could lead to higher prices in stores, potentially undermining supermarkets’ messaging around their competitive edge over smaller retailers.

    4. Public image

    Ultimately this move does supermarkets no harm. UK chains are both the backbone and the bane of farming. A handful of supermarkets dominate the food supply market, setting the prices farmers receive and shaping the structure of agricultural production.

    Supermarkets are often accused of exploiting farmers through their purchasing power, by dictating prices and imposing inflexible quotas. So their support for farmers could help with their public image. Aligning themselves with farmers offers them the opportunity to position themselves as protectors of the agricultural sector, boosting their public image while pressuring policymakers to take action.

    But will it change anything? Well, supermarkets have economic clout – and having their support is better than not having it.

    Historically, supermarkets have shown their collective ability to lobby. Their opposition to supermarket price caps, support for plastic reduction initiatives and even influencing policy in the wake of Brexit highlight how pressure from the big stores can shape national conversations.

    No one wants a return to empty supermarket shelves.
    Kauka Jarvi/Shutterstock

    All this, ultimately, is to ensure supermarkets can continue to serve customers with competitive prices. But who is paying for the UK’s cheap food culture?

    While supermarket dominance has led to lower prices for shoppers and even reduced inflation, it also exposes broader systemic issues within the UK’s food culture. Despite a recent study revealing that UK food costs were about 7% below the EU average, food prices remain a top concern for consumers in the UK.

    Farmers were not the only ones protesting. Migrant fruit and vegetable pickers staged a smaller demonstration, over claims of exploitation by farms.

    Either customers need to be prepared to pay more for their food, or supermarkets need to revisit their pricing strategies. Something has to give, and it appears that this time it cannot be the farmers or agricultural workers.

    While many farmers in the UK are asset-rich they are often cash-poor, frequently relying on wafer-thin profit margins to get by. Supermarkets may have a lot to lose if IHT reforms lead to lots of farmers leaving the sector.

    Protecting supply chains, maintaining cost structures and ultimately offering a stable, affordable domestic supply of produce is in their best interests. In the end, it may not be the farmers but the supermarkets who stand to gain (or lose) the most.

    Kamran Mahroof does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Why supermarkets are siding with farmers over inheritance tax – https://theconversation.com/why-supermarkets-are-siding-with-farmers-over-inheritance-tax-248234

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ukraine: prospects for peace are slim unless Europe grips the reality of Trump’s world

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

    When EU leaders gathered for their first ever meeting solely dedicated to defence issues on February 3, in Brussels, the war in Ukraine was uppermost on their minds. Yet, three weeks before the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine is only the tip of an iceberg of security challenges that Europe faces.

    War on a scale not seen in Europe since 1945 has returned to the continent. Russian sabotage of everything from critical infrastructure to elections is at levels reminiscent of the cold war. And the future of the EU’s most important defence alliance, Nato, is uncertain.

    In light of these challenges alone, let alone the ongoing instability in the Middle East, western Balkans and south Caucasus, it’s hard to disagree with the observation by EU council president António Costa that: “Europe needs to assume greater responsibility for its own defence.”

    But it’s hardly a groundbreaking statement. And at the end of proceedings, the outcome of what was ultimately only an informal meeting, was underwhelmingly summarised by Costa as “progress in our discussions on building the Europe of defence”.

    This does not bode well for Ukraine. US support is unlikely to continue at the levels reached during the final months of the Biden administration. In fact, ongoing debates in the White House on Ukraine policy have already caused some disruption to arms shipments from Washington to Kyiv.

    Building blocs

    If there is a silver lining for Ukraine here, it is Trump’s continuous search for a good deal. His latest idea is that Ukraine could pay for US support with favourable concessions on rare earths, and potentially other strategic resources.

    These would include preferential deals to supply the US with titanium, iron ore and coal, as well as critical minerals, including lithium. Whether this is a sustainable basis for US support in the long term is as unclear as whether it will make any material difference to Trump thinking beyond a ceasefire.

    The other ray of hope for Ukraine is that there is a much greater recognition in EU capitals now about the need for a common European approach to defence. A greater focus on building a “coalition of the willing” including non-EU members UK and Norway is a potentially promising path.

    But hope, as they say, is not a winning strategy. In a Trump-like transactional fashion, Brussels – in exchange for a deal on defence with London – is insisting on UK concessions on youth mobility and fishing rights. It’s unlikely that this will prove an insurmountable stumbling bloc, but it will create yet more delays at a moment when time is of the essence for Europe as a whole to signal determination about security and defence.

    This is further complicated by two factors. On the one hand, there is the looming threat of a trade war between the US and the EU. That the UK may still be able to avoid a similar fate, according to Trump, feels like good news for London. But it will also put the UK in a potentially awkward position as it seeks an ambitious post-Brexit reset with the EU and harbours hopes to improve relations with China.

    With Trump clearly hostile towards both Brussels and Beijing, this may become an impossible balancing act for the British government to pull off.

    Europe’s fragile unity

    On the other hand, EU unity has become more fragile. Trump’s victory has emboldened other populist leaders in Europe – notably the significantly more pro-Russian Slovak and Hungarian prime ministers, Robert Fico and Viktor Orbán. The same applies to the UK, where Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform UK party – which has overtaken the ruling Labour party in the latest public opinion polls – is known for his Ukraine-sceptical views.

    To that equation add a weak government in France and the likelihood of protracted coalition negotiations in Germany after hotly contested parliamentary elections at the end of February. The prospects for decisive EU and wider European action on strengthening its own security and defence capabilities right now appear vanishingly slim.

    Seen in the light of such multiple and complex challenges, it is astonishing how much the EU is still trapped in a wishful thinking exercise – and one that appears more and more disconnected from reality. Contrary to Costa’s fulsome pronouncements after the EU leaders’ meeting, there is little evidence that the US under Trump will remain Europe’s friend, ally and partner.

    There’s also little to suggest that the American president shares the values and principles that once underpinned the now rapidly dismantling international order. Other countries’ national sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of their borders are not at the forefront of Trump’s foreign policy doctrine.

    If, as Costa proclaimed, “peace in Europe depends on Ukraine winning a comprehensive, just and lasting peace”, then the future looks bleak indeed for Europe and Ukraine. At this point the EU and its member states are a long way off from being able to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to win. This is not just because they lack the military and defence-industrial capabilities. They also lack a credible, shared vision of how to acquire them while navigating a Trumpian world.

    Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

    – ref. Ukraine: prospects for peace are slim unless Europe grips the reality of Trump’s world – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-prospects-for-peace-are-slim-unless-europe-grips-the-reality-of-trumps-world-248911

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: New Glasgow prison given go-ahead

    Source: Scottish Government

    New investment to create jobs and support work to cut reoffending.

    A new modern prison in Glasgow to replace the 143-year-old HMP Barlinnie has been given the go-ahead – delivering £450 million worth of economic benefits.

    With the construction contract now signed, HMP Glasgow will have a capacity of 1,344 – adding 357 more places to the overall prison estate once completed in 2028. The total project cost is £998.4 million. 

    The prison has been designed to deliver fit-for-purpose, safe and secure accommodation that will improve opportunities for successful rehabilitation to help reduce reoffending, while creating a safer working environment for staff.

    The project, which independent benchmarking shows is in line with costs for similar recent prison builds in England and Wales, will provide significant economic benefits both during construction and following completion. During peak construction activity there will be over 1,000 people on site, with several thousand working on the project over the lifespan. There will be 50 new apprenticeships created within that workforce.

    Developer Kier Construction has committed to providing a range of community benefits, including employment for the local community, such as apprenticeships, training and work placements for ex-offenders, as well as supporting local businesses.

    Justice Secretary Angela Constance said:

    “HMP Glasgow is a bold vision for the future of Scottish prisons that will help reduce reoffending, contribute to less crime, while delivering a considerable economic boost for the city and beyond.

    “The new modern establishment will replace a Victorian-age prison that is no longer fit for purpose. It will increase prison capacity and transform how prisoners are rehabilitated, as well as considerably improving staff working conditions.

    “Delivering the best value has been a key consideration of this project, which will provide more £450 million worth of economic benefits, including jobs and contracts for businesses in Scotland. I very much welcome that at least 50% of project spend will benefit the local supply chain.

    “It has taken time to find the right site and plan for HMP Glasgow, and like all other major infrastructure projects it has not been immune to inflation as a result of Brexit and the COVID pandemic.

    “The project’s cost has been extensively scrutinised, with independent benchmarking analysis finding the costs are comparable with similar prison projects elsewhere in the UK.”

    Teresa Medhurst, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service, said:

    “HMP Glasgow will have a transformative impact in how we support and rehabilitate people.

    “It is an investment in our staff, in those in our care, and in Glasgow and Scotland as a whole, as we work with our partners to improve people’s futures and together build safer communities.

    “I want to thank Scottish Government, for its continued support and investment, and everyone whose hard work has helped us reach this important milestone as we continue to develop a prison estate fit for the 21st century.”

    Rebecca Boundy, Public Sector Director at Kier Construction, said: “It’s an honour to be awarded the contract to deliver this critical project.

    “We will build a sustainable, state-of-the-art facility while ensuring that local communities, schools and charities directly benefit both now and in the future.

    “Using the latest techniques and modern methods of construction, we will harness the very best of our team’s significant experience in the justice sector to provide a high-quality, more efficient prison for Scotland which has rehabilitation at its core.

    “The project will provide new jobs, with at least 50% of project spend committed to local supply chain partners, and also including provision for those who have directly experienced the justice system in the last six months.”

    Background

    The total cost of the project is £998.4 million which includes the cost of land acquisition, VAT and a construction contract cost of £683.8 million.

    Scotland’s largest prison, HMP Barlinnie is more than 140 years old. It houses male prisoners – both individuals on remand, and those with convictions serving vary lengths of sentence. HM Inspector of Prisons for Scotland said in its last independent annual report on Barlinnie that its buildings, accommodation and facilities are not fit for purpose.

    A National Audit Office report published on 4 December 2024, has highlighted recent significant increases in the costs of prisons builds in England and Wales.

    HMP Glasgow will be sited at Provanmill, south of Royston Road.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Irish fishing industry – E-002736/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The Commission represents the EU in coastal States consultations with Norway, the Faroe Islands, and others, in line with the EU position approved by the Council and in coordination with Member States. The focus is on sustainable, equitable mackerel stock management. The Commission urges collective quotas aligned with scientific advice, addressing the stock’s critical state caused by excessive unilateral quotas.

    The Commission is also exploring options to reinforce its sustainability tools, for instance, by clarifying the scope of application of Regulation 1026/2012[1] for the conservation of fish stocks in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing, which is subject to an ongoing ordinary legislative procedure.

    The total quota of Ireland for 2025 including transfers from the North Sea TAC (total allowable catches) amounts to 39 914 tonnes, agreed in line with the advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea for a 22% decrease. Ireland’s quota has decreased proportionately less than that of other Member States by virtue of the Council decision to grant Ireland a preferential treatment on mackerel (so-called Hague preferences)[2].

    Ireland was a main beneficiary of the EU support through the Brexit Adjustment Reserve until the end of 2023. Currently, Ireland’s fishers and coastal communities may benefit from the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) to modernise the fishing fleet, diversify income sources, and enable a sustainable blue economy in the affected communities.

    • [1] Commission proposal of 13 September 2024 to amend Regulation (EU) No 1026/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain measures for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing OJ L 316 COM(2024) 407 final.
    • [2] Annex VII to Council Resolution of 3 November 1976 (‘The Hague Resolution’).
    Last updated: 4 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The UK would be lucky to avoid US tariffs – but a global trade war would hurt everyone

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University

    Below the Sky/Shutterstock

    The first weeks of the Donald Trump’s administration have been marked by a flurry of announcements and U-turns on US trade policy.

    One of the first decrees centred on Trump’s favourite word: tariffs. He announced that US consumers and businesses would be taxed an extra 25% when they bought Canadian or Mexican products. (Canadian oil got off more lightly, with a 10% tariff.)

    But because this is Donald Trump we’re talking about, it later emerged that none of this was actually happening, for now. It might be next month, or later, or maybe not at all.

    However, US residents definitely face an additional 10% on the cost of products from China. There is also a plan for a 100% tax on semiconductors from Taiwan.

    And President Trump announced new import taxes will “definitely happen” on products from the European Union. If these do ever come to pass, it’s possible there may be a better deal for the UK.

    The reason for the possible Great British exemption from new US import taxes is that the stated goal of these taxes is to reduce the US trade deficit. This deficit refers to the fact that the US buys much more from the rest of the world than the rest of the world buys from it.

    And, depending on how we measure the financial flows coming in and out of tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands, the UK is one of the few countries in a position to make the case that it actually has a trade deficit with the US (the UK buys more from the US than the US buys from it).

    What about consumers?

    Being able to avoid new US tariffs would be very good news for the UK. If the US imposed import taxes on UK products and services, it would be bad for their consumers, who end up paying more. But it would also be bad for UK industry. Moreover, the UK would likely retaliate and tax US products, ultimately hurting British consumers as well.

    In theory, the UK miraculously escaping new US import taxes might even mean it indirectly benefits from a trade war between the US and the EU. If the UK can sell and buy more cheaply to both sides while they tax each other, it becomes more competitive. The UK would also get its imports more cheaply, and international businesses may want to establish subsidiaries in the UK.

    It is interesting to imagine a world in which a medium-sized, free trade supporting country like the UK ends up the winner of a global commercial war between its two most important trading partners.

    Things are not that simple however. Research shows that a major impact of tariffs is changes in global supply chains.

    As the UK has learned the hard way with Brexit, modern supply chains are increasingly interconnected. British exports are typically made with components from the European continent, which are themselves made with Chinese inputs.

    Additional costs anywhere in the chain result in more expensive products. Moreover, it is not clear that UK products made with EU and Chinese components would be exempt from US import tax.

    Disruption to supply chains could force up the cost of UK exports.
    Peter Titmuss/Shutterstock

    This is a global problem. For every final product a UK consumer ends up buying, there are many firms trying to source the best possible components and materials to make it with. If the US levies a 100% tax on chips and semiconductors from Taiwan, this means that products from the US tech industry will become more expensive for UK firms to use. This is even more pertinent given that China has retaliated to the new 10% US tax on its products by limiting the export of metals the US uses to produce its own chips.

    In this way it is easy to underestimate how sensitive supply chains are to small shocks, and what the butterfly effect of a trade war between two other countries might be on products bought and sold in the UK. So, while the UK would definitely be better off not being subject to US taxes, the main focus should be on helping to avoid global trade wars.

    How to do this is not clear, because no one seems to understand what Trump really wants from his tariffs. One theory is that he wants to pass for a madman and bully other countries into committing to buy more US-manufactured products.

    Or, in the case of Europe, to increase military spending by buying more US military equipment. In that case, tariffs would be short-lived and the impact limited. It will simply increase the incentives for international firms not to depend too much on the US.

    Or perhaps Trump really has no idea what he is doing, seemingly pursuing the two opposing goals of keeping domestic prices low while attempting to reduce its trade imbalance with ever-increasing import taxes. In that case, the consequences for consumers all over the world would be very bad. This is in part because of the effect on supply chains, but also because when the US economy is in bad shape the entire world suffers.

    Renaud Foucart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The UK would be lucky to avoid US tariffs – but a global trade war would hurt everyone – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-would-be-lucky-to-avoid-us-tariffs-but-a-global-trade-war-would-hurt-everyone-248963

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Minister for EU Relations – Article on UK-EU Reset

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Opinion-editorial authored by Nick Thomas-Symonds, Minister for European Union Relations. This was originally published in The Telegraph on Tuesday 4 February 2025.

    Like many people, I remember the night of the Brexit referendum vividly. I was in my constituency of Torfaen: my home, where I grew up and where I have always lived. The majority of people in my constituency, and across the UK, voted to leave the EU.

    I believe my constituents – like millions across the country – voted to leave because they wanted a change that would improve their lives. They hoped Brexit would mean better public services, more jobs, less migration, more security.

    What they got instead was years of chaos and a botched deal. [Redacted political content].

    People deserve better. They want the Government to respect their vote on Brexit – which we do – and they’re also pragmatic. This Government was elected to reset relations with the EU to help boost growth, improve the cost of living crisis and make our borders more secure. People, rightly, demand delivery.

    My role as the UK minister for European Union relations is to take expectations and make them a reality.

    What does that mean? For this Government, our reset with the EU means the UK being safer, more secure and increasingly prosperous. It does not mean hitting rewind. We are not undoing Brexit. There is no opacity over the outcome of the referendum in 2016. Yet, five years on, we can see some of the negative impacts of the current deal emerging here at home, as well as in Europe.

    Trade is a clear example. Despite the EU being our largest trading partner, with trade in 2023 worth over £800 billion, we are trading less. Between 2021 and 2023, exports to the EU were down 27 per cent and imported goods down 32 per cent.

    The problems are not just economic. Our borders are less secure. The asylum system has been pushed into crisis, with backlogs reaching record levels and costs hitting £5.4 billion in the last financial year, up over a billion pounds on the year before.

    We are not cooperating closely enough with the EU on law enforcement to smash the gangs behind the small boats. To make people safer, we must do all we can to strengthen our collective ability to tackle organised crime and work together on illegal migration.

    The Brexit deal did not address issues around security and defence cooperation, more vital than ever after Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. To keep the UK secure, we need to work with allies such as Ukraine and European partners, with NATO as our bedrock. The Prime Minister met with all 27 EU leaders and the secretary-general of NATO for this very reason: to discuss common threats and the value that closer EU-UK co-operation on defence could bring.

    To raise living standards, we need to build export and investment opportunities, reducing barriers to trade. This is of mutual benefit: the chancellor and the president of the European Commission are both pressing the need for cooperation to drive innovation, boost growth and reduce consumer costs.

    This is not about a choice between our allies. Some people make the false argument that we need to choose either America or Europe. For this Government, the UK’s national interest is paramount and demands we work with both.

    We will do so with a ruthless pragmatism, leaving ideologically driven division in the past in search of mutually beneficial areas of interest for both sides, within our red lines of no return to the single market, customs union, or freedom of movement.

    The Prime Minister and I will look at issues in a hard-headed way, guided by what works for the people and businesses of the UK. It’s as simple as that.

    The UK standing tall on the international stage, delivering for people by working with one of our key partners, matters. This is making Brexit work for my constituency and for the country.

    Updates to this page

    Published 4 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Secretary of State: “One year on from restoration – the challenge ahead”

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Transcript of the Secretary of State’s keynote address at Ulster University on 4 February 2025

    I am delighted to be speaking here today, in these wonderful surroundings. My thanks to Ulster University; indeed The Times’ UK University of the Year 2024, no less.

    This institution does so much fantastic work and is truly “a force for good in fostering peace, prosperity and cohesion”, as the judges of that illustrious award so eloquently described you. And it has been a privilege for me to meet some of your remarkable students this morning.

    This week, of course, we are marking the one year anniversary of the return of devolved government in Northern Ireland.

    But before I come to that, I just want to say this about Storm Eowyn.

    At its peak, over 280,000 properties were without electricity including acute hospitals and other essential services. But since the winds abated, there has been an extraordinary effort to deal with the damage, to clear fallen trees and to get electricity supplies up and running again.

    And I know that lots of people have worked really hard over long hours to restore services and I’m glad to say that NIE Networks is now very nearly there with the last electricity reconnections, and it has been a long time for some people to wait.

    It’s been a team effort which shows the strength of the United Kingdom in offering practical support. When trouble strikes, we come to the aid of each other.

    The restoration of power-sharing a year ago was a significant moment. It followed yet another unacceptably long time without a functioning government.

    When I was first appointed as shadow Secretary of State in September 2023, I said to Chris Heaton-Harris that my priority was to see the Executive restored.

    I want to pay tribute to Chris for the pivotal role he played in bringing back the institutions, to the leadership of the DUP for deciding to go back into powersharing, and to them and the leadership of Sinn Fein, the Alliance Party and the UUP for the great start tht the Executive has made. We all hope that its restoration is for good – the good of the people of Northern Ireland.

    By its very nature, power-sharing is difficult – very difficult – but just over a quarter of a century ago we saw extraordinary political leadership make it possible.

    Courage and compromise triumphed over bitter stalemate, as political leaders agreed the principles of power-sharing that endure to this day.

    I have great faith in Northern Ireland’s system of government. Indeed, there were long periods of relative Executive stability prior to 2017 in which we saw the devolution of policing and justice, and the establishment of the PSNI – which today enjoys significant cross-community support. Who could have imagined that 26 years ago? It’s a tribute to the work that Naomi Long and her predecessors have done in the role of Justice Minister.

    There was also significant economic growth, helped by Northern Ireland’s success in attracting inward investment. All examples of what can be achieved by sharing power.

    The people of Northern Ireland need and deserve an Executive that works for them all the time, along of course with an Opposition that holds the Executive to account, an important role being undertaken by Matthew O’Toole and the SDLP. And it is vital that all of us do all we can to ensure that the stability of devolved government endures.

    We have to put the days of collapse behind us and move forward.

    Now I say that not because I am worried about a return to instability. On the contrary, I have been so impressed by the leadership shown by Michelle O’Neill and Emma Little-Pengelly as First and deputy First Minister.

    The Executive has worked constructively together to negotiate an Interim Fiscal Framework, publish a Fiscal Sustainability Plan, bring forward a strategy to end violence against women and girls and a childcare and early learning plan, and agree a draft Programme for Government.

    It’s been a successful start, and I believe the conditions are now in place for the Executive to grasp the opportunities that beckon for Northern Ireland.

    The largest budget settlement since devolution with a funding formula that now reflects Northern Ireland’s level of need.

    Certainty, after the uncertainty that immediately followed the EU referendum in 2016, about Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market.

    Advantageous trading arrangements through the Windsor Framework, which can help draw in foreign direct investment.

    And finally – after too many years in which Northern Ireland was too often treated by the previous government as an afterthought – this Executive has a partner in this UK Government that is committed to working together to generate investment and economic growth and to help improve the delivery of public services.

    We all understand the scale of the challenge and the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, where poverty, paramilitarism and the past are entwined. And where the pain and trauma wrought by the terrible violence that shook this place continue – for many – to be deeply felt.

    And all our thoughts this week, and in the weeks to come, are with those family members taking part in the commemorative hearings in the Inquiry into the Omagh Bombing – a monstrous and despicable act of terrorist violence.

    We now must all play our part in building a more inclusive society which is at peace with itself as it looks to the future.

    And this is the moment for Northern Ireland’s devolved government to address the concerns that citizens have about their lives and their wish to see public services improve.

    My first six months or so in office as Secretary of State has reminded me about what Mo Mowlam once said:

    “People working together can overcome many obstacles, often within themselves, and by doing so can make the world a better place.”

    We are all aware of the acute challenges which we are grappling with right across the United Kingdom.

    Today I want to talk about three of these.

    First, reform and delivery of public services.

    Second, how to ensure the smooth flow of goods across the UK, while seeking to deepen our trade ties with Europe.

    And third, the need for sustained and sustainable economic growth, which is essential if we are to see raised living standards, and more money in people’s pockets on which subject, today the UK Government has announced a 6.7% increase in the National Living Wage from 1 April, which will benefit millions of people across the UK, including in Northern Ireland.

    The challenge for public services is particularly acute in Northern Ireland, and nowhere is this more urgent or obvious than in health.

    The facts are frankly shocking.

    Waiting time performance against cancer care targets continues to deteriorate, corridor care is becoming more frequent and it is striking how many people in Northern Ireland are now going private.

    More than a quarter of people in Northern Ireland are on a waiting list. That is more than double the figure in England.

    53% of people waiting for a first appointment with a consultant are waiting for more than a year in Northern Ireland.

    In England, that figure is 4%. That’s right, 53% compared to just 4%.

    That’s why the First Minister recently described the state of the health service as “dire and diabolical”.

    I agree. And this is despite UK Treasury data showing that spending per head on health is nearly £300 a year higher in Northern Ireland than it is in England.

    It is absolutely not that health and social care staff are somehow not doing all they can. On the contrary, they are working really, really hard to treat patients, but they are doing so in a system that clearly isn’t working.

    And why isn’t it working? Because – over many years – the decisions necessary for systemic and not piecemeal reform to the health and social care system in Northern Ireland simply haven’t been taken.

    Now the Health Minister Mike Nesbitt is developing a long term plan to stabilise, reconfigure and reform the health service. This is really encouraging and I sincerely wish him well.

    And the challenge now for the Executive is to take the difficult collective decisions that are required to enable this change to succeed.

    Doing so is now unavoidable.

    The task of transforming public services won’t be without cost. I get that. And I know that talk of transformation of public services inevitably leads to the issue of funding.

    So, allow me to say this.

    The Autumn Budget provided £18.2 billion for the Executive in 2025/2026 – the largest settlement in real terms in the history of devolution.

    This includes a £1.5 billion increase through the Barnett formula, with £1.2 billion for day-to-day spending and £270 million for capital investment.

    The independent Northern Ireland Fiscal Council has calculated that the relative need in Northern Ireland is 24% more per head than in England for equivalent spending. This rightly reflects the greater needs that there are in Northern Ireland.

    That is why, as part of the restoration agreement last year, a structural change was made to funding by adding a 24% needs-based factor to the Barnett formula, so as to ensure the Executive gets the level of funding it needs, now and in the future.

    This financial year and next financial year, funding for Northern Ireland will actually exceed this level.

    I frequently hear it said, however, that more funding is required from the UK Government and that that is the reason why public services are in such a state. But given the needs-based formula that is now in place, and given the increase in funding that the government has given, a lack of funding is not the impediment to public service transformation.

    The real impediment has been the failure to reform the system. The many missed opportunities to take decisions, or to apply lessons, from other parts of the UK where reform has happened.

    Of course, this has at times been down to there being no Executive in place to take those decisions, which is why it’s essential that the institutions do their job every day of the year.

    At other times, there has simply been a lack of agreement among Executive Ministers on the steps that need to be taken, or on the allocation of resources, or on the revenue that needs to be raised.

    I believe strongly in devolution in Northern Ireland – where decisions are made as close to the people they affect as possible, by the representatives the people have chosen.

    It is only right that the Executive makes decisions about its own spending and revenue raising priorities.

    However, it must take responsibility for balancing its budget and living within its means. Just as all other governments must.

    Now, the Executive has nine priorities set out in its draft Programme for Government, and the work of this UK Government is guided by our five Missions and our Plan for Change. These objectives are in many ways complementary, and I firmly believe the two need to work together.

    Since Fleur Anderson and I took office, we’ve been clear that we want to help ensure that the Executive has the support it needs.

    We want the UK Government to be an active partner and to encourage greater collaboration and sharing of expertise, so helping Northern Ireland to make progress for itself.

    And it is in this spirit that the Public Sector Transformation Board was conceived of, as part of the restoration deal, to bring together experts from across different sectors, and to enable the sharing of best practice from across the UK to support change.

    We have also made available £235m of funding for projects proposed by the Executive departments to transform the delivery of public services.

    I look forward to seeing the first tranche of this funding being allocated soon, followed, I hope, by the Executive -and I want to say that Caoimhe Archibald has done a great job as Finance Minister – bringing forward plans in the Budget for how the Executive will deploy its resources to deliver the wider transformation that is so urgently required in the health service.

    Let me now turn to the second matter I want to address.

    This UK Government will always uphold – in good faith – the Good Friday Agreement and the principle of consent on which it rests. And for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it to be so, Northern Ireland’s place in the Union is secure.

    The task now for us as politicians is to ensure that the Union continues to improve the lives of all communities, regardless of their constitutional ambition.

    Now, of course, I couldn’t come here today and speak about the restoration of the Northern Ireland institutions without recognising the issues that led to them not functioning in the first place, and the arrangements that enabled them to get back up and running.

    The concerns that people in Northern Ireland – particularly but not exclusively those from a Unionist background – had about the old Northern Ireland protocol were genuine. I shared many of them. It proved to be unworkable and damaging, and I supported the Windsor Framework that replaced it.

    The Framework brought significant improvements in the arrangements in Northern Ireland, thanks to the pragmatic approach the EU took in the negotiations.

    It recognised that goods staying within the UK’s internal market should not be subject to the full panoply of EU rules and checks.

    It ensured that medicines continue to be available on a UK-wide basis, and it enshrined an important new democratic safeguard in the form of the Stormont Brake.

    The Brake has received quite a bit of attention of late. There are some who have said that because the outcome recently was not as they wished, it doesn’t have any value.

    That isn’t true.

    The main criterion for use of the Brake – namely, that the proposed new EU rule would have a significant and lasting impact on communities in Northern Ireland – and that is quite a high bar – is clearly set out in law. The fact that this bar was not met on this occasion, does not have any bearing on whether it might be met on any future occasion. Why? Because each case must be considered on its merits. That’s the responsibility on me in law.

    But the Brake notification by MLAs – which reflected genuine concerns – did lead to a clear commitment by the UK Government to take the steps necessary to avoid new regulatory barriers in respect of chemicals. Which was the issue that had given rise to the application.

    I think this was a positive outcome, and precisely what the Brake was designed to do.

    More generally, I am not going to rehash old debates about Brexit. My views during the referendum and subsequently are fairly well known.

    But I hope that the experience of what has happened since the referendum taught us all something important. And that is that we should beware those offering simplistic soundbites rather than grappling with difficult and complex questions, like the one which lies at the heart of this debate. How do you deal with trade between two countries with different rules but an open border between them?

    Serious leadership and the questions it has to deal with – such as that provided by those sitting around the Executive table, or operating in constructive opposition in the Assembly, or by the UK Government – requires serious answers.

    And when it became clear that the Windsor Framework was not the final word, through painstaking months, the Democratic Unionist Party worked through the remaining issues to secure some important new commitments in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper.

    They engaged in the detail and achieved changes for their constituents when it might have been politically safer or easier to demand the impossible from the sidelines.

    Some others did take that latter path – I would say with absolutely no benefit to anyone that they represented.

    So, I commend the role that the leader of the DUP, Gavin Robinson, and the now deputy First Minister, played in that process – and for the courage and commitment to Northern Ireland that they demonstrated in leading their party back into the Executive.

    And for my part, let me say that I am committed to continuing to work in good faith to implement the basis on which devolution was restored.

    We have clearly made good progress:

    • an Independent Monitoring Panel is in place to report on how it’s going on meeting the new Internal Market Guarantee

    • every public authority implementing the Windsor Framework must now look to statutory guidance on the importance of Northern Ireland’s place in the Union in discharging their duties

    • every Government department must set out the impact of major regulatory changes on the functioning of the UK’s internal market, including Northern Ireland.

    • an Independent Review has been established recognising that the democratic vote to continue the Framework’s application was not supported by Unionist MLAs

    • we have new working groups on Veterinary Medicines and horticulture up and running – acknowledging that there is still important work to be done

    • we will shortly establish Intertrade UK.

    But most important of all, goods are flowing back and forth between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

    This is a process, it is not a destination.

    And my commitment, as we continue to take forward Safeguarding the Union, is to continue working with all parts of the community and with all the political parties, to address concerns and problems.

    It certainly won’t always be smooth, but I am really grateful to all those who are willing to engage in the hard slog each day to improve things further for the people of Northern Ireland.

    And as we honour the commitments we have made in the Windsor Framework, as we must, this Government is also working to secure a stronger and better relationship with the European Union.

    An SPS and veterinary agreement just to take that example would produce tangible benefits for businesses and traders in Northern Ireland and indeed across the UK by helping animal and plant products to flow freely across the Irish Sea. So there is light at the end of this tunnel.

    Beyond strengthening Northern Ireland’s place in the Internal Market, investments being made by this UK Government will help to strengthen Northern Ireland’s economy.

    We all know the particular challenges facing the economy in Northern Ireland, not least on productivity, but Northern Ireland’s economic output is now 9.7% above its pre-pandemic level, which is significantly higher than the rest of the UK.

    In the last decade the total number of employee jobs is up 15%. And as we know Northern Ireland now has the lowest level of unemployment in the UK.

    I am determined to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from UK Government initiatives designed to generate economic growth and power the green transition.

    Central to this will be our new modern industrial strategy – Invest 2035 – and our commitment to make the whole of the UK a clean energy superpower with GB Energy, a publicly owned company, at its heart.

    We will work closely with the Executive and the other devolved governments on our 10-year Infrastructure Strategy and the National Wealth Fund to ensure the benefits are felt UK-wide.

    Alongside the Industrial Strategy, we will mobilise billions of pounds of investment in the UK’s world-leading industries, including Northern Ireland’s strengths in areas like fin-tech and the creative industries.

    I was delighted that last month, Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, announced that Belfast is one of this Government’s priority regions for the Creative Industries, and this Spring will see the full opening of Studio Ulster – a truly unique facility that will not just support the growing creative industry in Northern Ireland, but will also take it into the next era of screen innovation, making it a global player in performance technology. Fleur and I had a sneak preview before we came into this hall today, and I’m looking forward to visiting the new Studio Ulster itself.

    And of course, the Belfast City Deal has helped to fund Studio Ulster.

    And as we move full steam ahead with the City and Growth Deals right across Northern Ireland, these will demonstrate the significant impact of a partnership that has been developed between the Executive, the UK Government, local councils and businesses to make things happen.

    It is also fantastic that shipbuilding is returning to Belfast. As announced in December, a commercial deal has been reached that will see Navantia UK – a specialist in shipbuilding – purchase Harland and Wolff, thus ensuring the delivery of the Ministry of Defence’s three Fleet Solid Support Ships.

    This deal, which will protect around 500 jobs in Belfast, demonstrates the Government’s unwavering commitment to UK shipbuilding, and to Harland and Wolff.

    Throughout the process, the Government worked with devolved governments, local MPs and the relevant trade unions, on the commitments on jobs that are part of the deal.

    And let’s not forget all of the other strengths of Northern Ireland. Farming, its fantastic universities, including this wonderful institution we’re meeting in today, the voluntary and community sector, advanced manufacturing, thriving life sciences, and a world-leading cybersecurity industry which, with UK Government investment here in Northern Ireland, is so important for UK-wide national resilience.

    Investment is vital for Northern Ireland, but to maximise potential it needs to get its infrastructure right. To take just one example, last year NI Water confirmed that there are 19,000 applications for development that cannot go ahead due to the outdated and at capacity sewage network.

    And, of course, political stability is crucial to encourage investors to put their money into Northern Ireland.

    As I look at all of this, what strikes me most forcefully about Northern Ireland is the energy, the enterprise, the imagination and the innovation of the people and businesses and the local authorities and the politicians that I have met.

    To take just one example of a firm I visited in October – I could tell you of many others – Edge Innovate designs, manufactures and exports its material handling and recycling equipment – and you have to see the size of it, some of those bits of kit are enormous- from their factory in Dungannon all over the world.

    It was so impressive, so let us all tell their and other stories of Northern Ireland’s success.

    Because measured by what went before, the last 26 years really have been a success. Your success. Northern Ireland has been transformed.

    So, as we look towards the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement in 2028, I am so encouraged that a majority of people here continue to view power-sharing as the best form of government.

    Of course, there is a debate about reform of the institutions – it would be surprising if there were not – but my view is this.

    Just as it took agreement between the parties to establish power-sharing in the first place, so it will require agreement between the parties to reform the current arrangements. And the task for now for today is to make them work for the people of Northern Ireland.

    So in doing so, let us take inspiration from the words of the great George Mitchell, I had the privilege of meeting him a couple of months ago, who – on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Agreement – said:

    “The answer is not perfection, or permanence. It is now, as it was then, for the current and future leaders of Northern Ireland to act with courage and vision, as their predecessors did 25 years ago. To find workable answers to the daily problems of the present.”

    That is the responsibility that each of us takes on when we stand for elected office, whoever we are, and when the people say they want us to get on with the task.

    Let me assure you. The Executive will be in the lead but it will not be alone.

    And at this moment in history and at this time, I believe that Northern Ireland has all it needs to be a success and to be a beacon of hope to the world by showing that peace is truly the foundation on which progress is built.

    Updates to this page

    Published 4 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Minister for European Union Relations speech at EU-UK Forum

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    A speech delivered in Brussels at the EU-UK Forum by Nick Thomas-Symonds, Minister for European Union Relations.

    Many thanks, Paul, and many thanks to the EU-UK Forum for organising this conference.

    And, of course, for the invitation for me to come along to speak.

    I suppose I should also say a big thank you to the Prime Minister for the warm-up act last night.

    It’s a real pleasure to share a stage with my EU counterpart Maros Sefcovic.

    Even though, of course, Maros joined us virtually, our mutual goal of reaching a better UK EU relationship is very real.   

    And today, I want to explain why that is so important…

    …what it could mean for the UK and for Europe…

    …and what I believe the defining structure of that relationship could look like. 

    It is obvious to me – as I am sure it is to all of you – that at a time of such intense global change, the UK and the EU have many mutually aligned interests and challenges.

    We want increased prosperity…

    … we want to strengthen our security…

    …and we want our citizens to be safe. 

    Those joint challenges that we face were powerfully set out by our UK Chancellor, Rachel Reeves…

    …and, indeed, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen just last week.

    In her growth speech, my Friend the Chancellor didn’t shy away from the economic challenges that we are confronting. She said:

    “Growth will not come without a fight. Without a government willing to take the right decisions now to change our country’s future for the better.  

    “But for too long, that potential has been held back.”  

    On the same day, the President von der Leyen presented the ‘Competitiveness Compass’ saying that, and I quote:

     “Europe has everything it needs to succeed. But, at the same time, we must fix our weaknesses to regain competitiveness.” 

    The ‘Competitive Compass’ sets out the importance of “trade openness”, “not only for sustaining Europe’s prosperity, but also for enhancing its resilience”.

    We know that low growth is not the destiny for our economies. 

    Research and innovation…

    …reducing red tape…

    …a new skills agenda…

    …boosting productivity…

    …a more resilient economy…

    …all these elements found in the Compass are also crucial parts of the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change.  

    These are areas of mutual interest to both of our economies

    It is also clear about the vital interconnection between security and prosperity…

    …that is why the work we are all engaged in – that Maroš and I are driving forward – is so vital.

    In the UK and indeed in Brussels – we are clear-eyed about the scale of challenges that we face – and the opportunities for growth and innovation.

    The European Union is the UK’s biggest trading partner, with trade totalling – in 2023 – over £800bn.

    Many of our best education and science facilities have lifelong links…

    …and our collaboration on research and development has been the springboard for hugely successful innovations that have driven growth and jobs. 

    And in a more uncertain world, we are regularly reminded that allies are more secure together than they are apart.

    This Government’s position is simple: the UK and the EU are linked through trade and international organisations like NATO…

    …and even though we voted to leave the EU, our role as key allies and trade partner remains.

    We know that for these relationships to flourish, trust is a vital ingredient.  

    This Government recognises that the UK’s signature means something.

    So, we are committed to implementing the Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the Windsor Framework and building on that structure to address emerging challenges and opportunities.

    Now, I want to say – straightforwardly – that we see real opportunities to improve the status quo.

    As ‘Businesseurope’ set out in their report this Autumn: 

    “There remain many unnecessary barriers to trade and investment. Following the elections of new governments in the EU and UK, there is a clear opportunity to upgrade the relationship to deliver for businesses and citizens.”

    I agree with them. 

    A study published last year showed that between 2021 and 2023, the goods EU businesses export to the UK were down by 32%…

    …while UK goods exports to the EU were down by 27%.

    That is not good for British business or European businesses…

    …especially at a time when our economies need a kickstart. 

    Reducing trade barriers is of mutual benefit to the UK and the EU. 

    [redacted political content]

    It was vital that we re-joined Horizon…

    …we should never have left in the first place…

    …but the gap in continuity and other challenges means we haven’t together achieved as much as we could have done.

    It’s especially bad when global competition for innovation has never been fiercer.

    When the UK should have been working more closely with international law enforcement on security…

    …we frankly wasted years undermining the role of the ECHR, in pursuit of a doomed Rwanda deportation scheme.

    We cannot continue in this way with one of our largest, most important partners… 

    …that is why this Government will always work in the UK’s national interest…

    …and for me, that means being a ruthlessly pragmatic negotiator.

    That means making the case for closer working with our allies in the EU, to make people across the UK and the EU safer, more secure and more prosperous…

    …that means making sure that we are working to strengthen cooperation, moving away from a zero sum, win, lose dynamic we have seen in recent years…

    …and that is the spirit I take into discussions with the EU. 

    The UK and the EU have many mutually beneficial interests… 

    …I want to build on these as we work to reset our relationship…

    …to help construct a more secure, a safer and a more prosperous UK and EU. 

    Now this British Government was elected on a mandate…

    …to strengthen national security by reconnecting with our allies…

    …to increase people’s safety through strong borders…

    …and increase prosperity through growth.

    Our European friends are a part of every single one of those priorities…

    …and I believe it’s these priorities that form the three pillars of a reset in our relationship.

    On security – you saw yesterday how seriously we’re taking this.

    Our Prime Minister met with all 27 of the EU leaders and the Secretary General of NATO… 

    …discussing the common threats we face…

    …and the value that closer EU-UK cooperation on defence could bring…

    …whether it’s securing undersea cables or working together on research and development. 

    On safety – I am clear that if we want to protect our respective borders and keep our citizens safe, then we need to work together.

    That is the only way we’re going to break up the vile global trade in human trafficking…

    …that’s the only way to tackle organised crime and terrorism, which plagues us all. 

    And on prosperity – if we want to grow our economies…

    …and boost our living standards…

    …then we need to reduce barriers to UK and EU trade. 

    And I am pleased to say that – that on all three of these issues – we are making progress. 

    On security, the Prime Minister and the President of the European Council have made clear they wanted closer cooperation on security and defence…

    …and the EU High Representative and the Foreign Secretary have already agreed to new six-monthly Foreign Policy dialogues 

    On safety, we have already increased the UK’s presence at Europol…

    …but I want us to go further. 

    We need to find to find ways to better coordinate law enforcement so that we can smash the gangs behind the small boats. 

    To make people safer, we must do all we can to strengthen our collective ability to tackle organised crime and work together on illegal migration.

    Afterall, these are shared challenges. 

    And on prosperity, we have said we will seek to negotiate a Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement to remove barriers to trade…

    …and find ways to resolve issues like the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications.

    We can go much further on energy and the green transition.

    Our Government’s commitment is to Make Britain a Clean Energy superpower by 2030… 

    …and together, we need to deliver energy security so that we are never again left exposed as we were when Russia – illegally – invaded Ukraine.

    These challenges all span borders and we must work together to seize opportunities that lie ahead.

    All of this work is supported by much greater cooperation between the UK Government and the EU. 

    Right from the very top – with the Prime Minister meeting with President von der Leyen and Council President Costa…

    …agreeing to a leader-level summit that will be held in May, where we hope we can deliver a balanced, yet ambitious outcome to benefit all of our citizens.

    Just before Christmas, our Chancellor attended a meeting of the EU finance ministers…

    …the first time a British Chancellor has been invited to the Eurogroup since Brexit.

    These meetings form only some of the nearly 70 direct engagements…

    …between UK Ministers and our EU counterparts since coming into Government…

    …and I look forward to many more ahead. 

    And I say to you all: I look forward to working with you throughout this year and into the future.

    But ladies and gentlemen – the time for ideologically-driven division is over…

    …the time for ruthless pragmatism is now.

    It is through a new partnership between the UK and the EU that we will deliver for the people of the United Kingdom, and for people across the continent.

    The future of the EU and the UK lies beyond the status quo…

    …reaching forward to deliver benefits for all our people to share.

    So, let us rise to our shared challenges and grasp this opportunity.

    Because together we will create a stronger UK and we will create a stronger Europe.

    Thank you very much.

    Updates to this page

    Published 4 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Strong bonds with European neighbours is the only tonic to toxic Trump

    Source: Green Party of England and Wales

    In response to Starmer joining the EU 27 this evening, Greens are urging him to put European unity at the top of his agenda to provide a united front against the toxic impact of Trump’s trade wars.

    Commenting, Green Party Co-Leader, Adrian Ramsay MP, said: 

    “Tonight represents a historic opportunity for the UK. Starmer will be the first PM to attend an EU summit since we left the European Union.

    “In the face of increasing international hostility from President Trump, the UK needs to be clear that we stand united in the face of his aggression.

    “Starmer cannot do that by parroting Trump’s talking points on defence spending.

    “Strong bonds with our European neighbours are the only antidote available to this toxic Trump Presidency.

    “In the short-term, Starmer should embrace the idea of young people being able to move freely across their continent to work travel and study and respond positively to the EU’s offer of a youth mobility scheme”

    He continued: 

    “Brexit has resulted in tens of billions of pounds draining from our economy.

    “The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that Brexit will deliver a 15% long-term hit to UK trade.

    “We should, as a matter of urgency, be looking to rejoin the Customs Union as a first step to plugging this hole.

    “And the PEM deal the EU has offered is a no brainer.

    “If Starmer is serious about taking tough decisions for economic stability then this would be a good starting point, not pumping money into climate-rocketing projects like Heathrow expansion.”

    END 

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The way UK inflation is worked out is changing – and it will matter for everyone

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marcel Lukas, Senior Lecturer in Banking and Finance and Director of Executive Education, University of St Andrews

    1000 Words/Shutterstock

    Visit a supermarket in 2025 and you’ll see that a tub of Lurpak butter can cost £5.70. It may strike you that this represents a staggering increase from £3.65 just three years ago, so instead of paying the premium, you reach for the supermarket’s own brand at £3.80.

    This kind of switch, multiplied across millions of shopping baskets, represents a massive shift in consumer behaviour that has been largely invisible to official statistics. But that’s changing, as the UK embarks on its biggest revolution in measuring living costs since the second world war.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is transforming the way it tracks inflation, moving from painstakingly checking prices to analysing millions of real purchases through supermarket scanners. Consider olive oil, the price of which surged by 47% in a year, or milk, which jumped by more than 25%. While official statistics captured these price rises, they couldn’t track how households adapted – whether by switching to cheaper alternatives, buying less, or cutting back elsewhere. This was a blind spot in our understanding of consumer behaviour.

    Currently, price collectors visit stores across the country each month, checking the prices of about 25,000 products. It’s like taking a snapshot of what’s on the shelves at a particular moment. But this system, designed decades ago, often misses the real impact of inflation on different household types in things like choosing different products or switching stores.

    This is crucial for understanding the real impact of inflation on lower-income households. These families often have less flexibility in their budgets and must make more dramatic changes to their shopping habits when prices rise. During recent periods of high inflation, many on low incomes found that official figures didn’t match their experience, which was of even higher inflation than the headline rates. And there’s a good reason why.

    Inflation statistics aren’t just academic exercises. They drive decisions that affect every aspect of our financial lives. The Bank of England uses them to set interest rates, which in turn influence mortgage payments and savings returns. Employers use them in wage negotiations. Government uses them to adjust benefits, state pensions and tax thresholds. Even commercial contracts, including mobile phone bills and rail fares, are often linked to inflation rates.

    When these numbers don’t accurately reflect price pressures, it can have serious consequences. If official figures underestimate the inflation experienced by lower-income households, benefit increases might not keep pace with their actual cost increases. Similarly, if wages don’t rise in line with real living costs, workers effectively experience a pay cut.

    The scanner data revolution

    The ONS’s new approach, to be introduced next year, will analyse around 300 million price points from supermarket scanners, covering about half of all grocery transactions in the UK. Instead of just seeing what’s on the shelf, they’ll know exactly what prices people are paying at checkouts across the country.

    This massive increase in data points – from 25,000 to 300 million – will allow for a more nuanced understanding of consumer behaviour.

    The change will also enable quicker identification of emerging price trends. After the start of the COVID pandemic and the Ukraine war, prices of certain goods changed rapidly. Scanner data could help spot these changes faster, allowing for more timely policy responses. It might also reveal regional variations in price pressures.

    Take the 2023 surge in food prices – while overall food inflation hit 19%, the impact varied dramatically across households. Current statistics would not capture lower-income families switching from fresh to frozen vegetables, or from branded to value ranges.

    In times of cost pressures, shoppers may switch from fresh produce to frozen.
    sirtravelalot/Shutterstock

    With scanner data, policymakers could spot these trends quickly and respond more precisely – perhaps by adjusting benefit payments or targeting support to specific households when essential food costs spike. Instead of waiting for quarterly surveys to reveal hardship, they will be able to see in real time how different groups are coping with price pressures.

    The ONS recently said full implementation will come in 2026, a year later than planned. While it will have the technical capability ready by March 2025, it is opting for a year of parallel running to ensure accuracy. This approach reflects how crucial these statistics are for the economy.

    It has already modernised other areas of price collection, including incorporating 40 million train fare data points and 300,000 used car prices. But grocery prices, being central to household budgets and varying significantly across different income groups, require extra attention.

    The change is coming at a crucial time. Recent years have shown how rapidly economic conditions can change and how differently these changes can affect various segments of society. The pandemic, Brexit adjustments, and global supply chain disruptions have all contributed to price pressures.

    For consumers, while the changes won’t directly lower prices, they could lead to more appropriate responses from the Bank of England, government and employers. Most importantly, it could ensure that official inflation figures better reflect the reality of the weekly shop, particularly during times of economic stress.

    The transformation of inflation statistics might seem like a technical detail, but its implications reach far beyond government offices and economic reports. It’s about ensuring that the official measures of living costs better reflect the reality experienced by millions of households across the UK. In this challenging economic environment, that’s something worth getting right.

    Marcel Lukas receives funding from the British Academy. He is the Director of Executive Education at the University of St Andrews and Fellow of the ONS. The presented views are his own and do not represent the ONS.

    – ref. The way UK inflation is worked out is changing – and it will matter for everyone – https://theconversation.com/the-way-uk-inflation-is-worked-out-is-changing-and-it-will-matter-for-everyone-248514

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Prime Minister to hold defence and security talks with European partners

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Europe must double down on its efforts to crush Putin’s war machine as Russia’s economy shows signs of weakening, the Prime Minister will warn tomorrow [Monday 3 February].

    • Prime Minister to call on European countries to continue bearing down on Putin in the face of the struggling Russian economy 
    • He will discuss plans for a UK-EU defence and security partnership with the UK’s closest partners in order to tackle the generational threats we all face
    • Prime Minister continues his focus on bolstering the UK’s national security – the key foundation upon which the government will deliver its Plan for Change

    Europe must double down on its efforts to crush Putin’s war machine as Russia’s economy shows signs of weakening, the Prime Minister will warn tomorrow [Monday 3 February].

    As he travels to Brussels for defence and security talks, he will urge the UK’s closest allies to step up and shoulder more of the burden in order to keep Europe safe against Russia’s increasing campaign of sabotage and destruction on our continent. 

    Putin is facing mounting domestic pressure as a result of his struggling economy, having ploughed billions into bankrolling his war machine – leading to skyrocketing inflation and soaring interest rates in Russia.  

    The recent sanctions imposed on Putin’s shadow fleet and energy companies have dealt a severe blow to Russia’s oil trade. Russian oil and gas revenues were down 29% in 2024 compared to 2022, and the sanctions have led to a sharp rise in shipping costs, with the majority of sanctioned vessels left unable to trade. 

    The UK and its allies have introduced the most punishing sanctions ever imposed on any global economy, with Putin himself admitting that these are causing a “colossal number of difficulties”. 

    The UK alone has sanctioned more than 2,100 individuals and entities under the Russia sanctions regime, over 1,900 of which were imposed since Putin’s full-scale invasion. This includes more than 100 ships for transporting Russian energy, including 93 oil tankers.  

    The Prime Minister will call on Europe to keep up the pressure on Putin, alongside sustained military support to Ukraine, to put them in the strongest possible position this year.  

    The Prime Minister will say today:

    We need to see all allies stepping up – particularly in Europe. 

    President Trump has threatened more sanctions on Russia and it’s clear that’s got Putin rattled. We know that he’s worried about the state of the Russian economy. 

    I’m here to work with our European partners on keeping up the pressure, targeting the energy revenues and the companies supplying his missile factories to crush Putin’s war machine. 

    Because ultimately, alongside our military support, that is what will bring peace closer. 

    The Prime Minister has prioritised security as a foundation for his Plan for Change, believing every mission relies on a strong security base, from ensuring the UK’s Armed Forces have the cutting-edge equipment they need, to securing medical supply chains and increasing diversification in energy supplies.

    Tomorrow afternoon, he will meet with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, before travelling to meet with the leaders of the 27 EU Member States at an informal meeting of the European Council. 

    There, the Prime Minister will set out his pitch for an ambitious UK-EU defence and security partnership with a number of steps to increase co-operation on shared threats, and go further on cross-border crime and illegal migration, while delivering growth and security at home. 

    The session of the Informal European Council is part of the Prime Minister’s ongoing commitment to strengthen our partnership with the European Union in order to drive growth, boost living standards and keep the UK safe and secure. 

    The Prime Minister is committed to making Brexit work better for the British people while keeping within his red lines – no return to freedom of movement and no re-joining the customs union or single market.

    Updates to this page

    Published 2 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Press release: Prime Minister to hold defence and security talks with European partners

    Source: United Kingdom – Prime Minister’s Office 10 Downing Street

    Europe must double down on its efforts to crush Putin’s war machine as Russia’s economy shows signs of weakening, the Prime Minister will warn tomorrow [Monday 3 February].

    • Prime Minister to call on European countries to continue bearing down on Putin in the face of the struggling Russian economy 
    • He will discuss plans for a UK-EU defence and security partnership with the UK’s closest partners in order to tackle the generational threats we all face
    • Prime Minister continues his focus on bolstering the UK’s national security – the key foundation upon which the government will deliver its Plan for Change

    Europe must double down on its efforts to crush Putin’s war machine as Russia’s economy shows signs of weakening, the Prime Minister will warn tomorrow [Monday 3 February].

    As he travels to Brussels for defence and security talks, he will urge the UK’s closest allies to step up and shoulder more of the burden in order to keep Europe safe against Russia’s increasing campaign of sabotage and destruction on our continent. 

    Putin is facing mounting domestic pressure as a result of his struggling economy, having ploughed billions into bankrolling his war machine – leading to skyrocketing inflation and soaring interest rates in Russia.  

    The recent sanctions imposed on Putin’s shadow fleet and energy companies have dealt a severe blow to Russia’s oil trade. Russian oil and gas revenues were down 29% in 2024 compared to 2022, and the sanctions have led to a sharp rise in shipping costs, with the majority of sanctioned vessels left unable to trade. 

    The UK and its allies have introduced the most punishing sanctions ever imposed on any global economy, with Putin himself admitting that these are causing a “colossal number of difficulties”. 

    The UK alone has sanctioned more than 2,100 individuals and entities under the Russia sanctions regime, over 1,900 of which were imposed since Putin’s full-scale invasion. This includes more than 100 ships for transporting Russian energy, including 93 oil tankers.  

    The Prime Minister will call on Europe to keep up the pressure on Putin, alongside sustained military support to Ukraine, to put them in the strongest possible position this year.  

    The Prime Minister will say today:

    We need to see all allies stepping up – particularly in Europe. 

    President Trump has threatened more sanctions on Russia and it’s clear that’s got Putin rattled. We know that he’s worried about the state of the Russian economy. 

    I’m here to work with our European partners on keeping up the pressure, targeting the energy revenues and the companies supplying his missile factories to crush Putin’s war machine. 

    Because ultimately, alongside our military support, that is what will bring peace closer. 

    The Prime Minister has prioritised security as a foundation for his Plan for Change, believing every mission relies on a strong security base, from ensuring the UK’s Armed Forces have the cutting-edge equipment they need, to securing medical supply chains and increasing diversification in energy supplies.

    Tomorrow afternoon, he will meet with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, before travelling to meet with the leaders of the 27 EU Member States at an informal meeting of the European Council. 

    There, the Prime Minister will set out his pitch for an ambitious UK-EU defence and security partnership with a number of steps to increase co-operation on shared threats, and go further on cross-border crime and illegal migration, while delivering growth and security at home. 

    The session of the Informal European Council is part of the Prime Minister’s ongoing commitment to strengthen our partnership with the European Union in order to drive growth, boost living standards and keep the UK safe and secure. 

    The Prime Minister is committed to making Brexit work better for the British people while keeping within his red lines – no return to freedom of movement and no re-joining the customs union or single market.

    Updates to this page

    Published 2 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How should Keir Starmer handle Donald Trump – and how’s it going so far?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

    The pairing of British prime minister Keir Starmer and US president Donald Trump connotes many imponderables. The only certainty happens to be the most significant: they will be in office together for four years.

    It is rare for a prime minister and a president to have the luxury of knowing – barring extreme unpredictabilities, such as death or incapacity – they have a full term in harness. And personal chemistry matters.

    Trump emphasises (rather too much for the liking of America’s allies) the deal, the handshake, the gaze; the bond that only the lonely, only those who lead, can have. Starmer emphasises level-headedness (although his government has not been particulary conspicuous in evincing it).

    Opposites may well attract, but the precedents for coterminous presidents and prime ministers are not encouraging. John Major and Bill Clinton, elected seven months apart, spent 1992 to 1997 together. But in the very definition of what not to do before an election, London had made its preference for the result of the election in America known – and the other guy won. The Conservative and the Democrat were no more than coolly cordial thereafter.

    On his re-election in 2001, Tony Blair knew he had George W. Bush for at least four years – it turned out to be eight – but the consequences for him were disastrous once the two decided to partake in a war on “terror”.

    In 1964, Harold Wilson and Lyndon Johnson were elected almost simultaneously, and spent 1964 to 1968 together. Though they were Labour and Democrat, and therefore from sister parties, it was not a harmonious pairing. Wilson’s meddling in, but lack of support for, Johnson’s war in Vietnam was a source of unbridled irritation in the White House.

    Trump and May

    The last time Trump became president, Theresa May was prime minister and she travelled with undisguised haste to the White House. There she achieved a highly untypical diplomatic coup in getting Trump to commit publicly to Nato (that bars should be so low was a general feature of the presidency).

    Their subsequent relationship was, however, toxic. No prime minister has been less likely to gaze, to bond (despite pictures of them holding hands), and the president held her as having mangled Brexit, a bid for freedom with which he was keen to associate himself.

    Before the US election, Starmer displayed a unfamiliar deftness of touch, and banked some credit. His immediate phone call to candidate Trump following an attempt on his life in July was both bold and smart. There followed the fabled Trump Tower two-hour chicken dinner.

    It was more typical for Starmer that when it emerged, in a most unfortunate echo of 1992, Labour activists – and Starmer’s own pollster – were working on the Kamala Harris campaign, Trump’s people cried foreign interference and threatened legal action.

    And the two in Starmer’s team who will have the most exposure to the new administration have both been publicly rude about Trump. David Lammy, now foreign secretary, called him “deluded, dishonest, xenophobic [and] narcissistic” in 2019.

    Peter Mandelson, nominated but not yet confirmed as the UK ambassador to the US, has made comments about Trump being a “bully” and a “danger to the world”. To appease opposition in DC on his appointment, Mandelson has since turned on a sixpence (or perhaps a dime).

    This is, at root, about Trump. No other president would have attracted such comments from frontline politicians. But from TV studio to TV studio, Lammy and Mandelson will have those quotes hung about their necks as if they were modern-day ancient mariners. Starmer’s innate caution in public utterance, in this area at least, has inured him.

    Indeed, the repercussions of his unusual boldness in picking Mandelson over a career diplomat may discourage Starmer from ever thinking imaginatively again.

    Most members of the Trump administration would be naturally hostile to a Labour government even without its leading figures insulting their boss or campaigning for his opponent. Certainly, the grounds for disagreement are great: the threat of tariffs, demanded increases in defence spending, the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, co-operation with China and support for Ukraine.

    Thus Morgan McSweeney – architect of Labour’s 2024 victory, planner of its re-election and Starmer’s chief of staff – flew out to meet Susie Wiles, his equivalent in the White House. (It did not, a person privy to such information told me, go well. Voices were raised.)

    Elon Musk, this moment’s most prominent presidential acolyte inveighed on X, “Starmer must go”, adding for good measure, “He is a national embarrassment.” It is indeed embarrassing – for Starmer – but he will be consoled with the well-founded suspicion that the life-expectancy of Musk and Trump’s tech bromance will be much less than four years.

    Cause for self-reflection

    The return of Trump, emboldened and more powerful than before, has effectively forced the posing of the age-old question: over which expanse of sea should Britain gaze – the Channel or the Atlantic? Churchill thought it should – and that only Britain could – do both.

    Hence, perhaps, Trump’s own public statement about the possible destination of his first international trip: “It could be UK. Traditionally, it’s been UK.”

    It hasn’t. Only Jimmy Carter, in 1977, and Joe Biden, in 2021, visited the UK first – and then because of summits. More than a few presidents (most recently Ford and Johnson) didn’t visit at all.

    But even what might have been a supportive comment was laced with arsenic: “Last time, I went to Saudi Arabia because they agreed to buy 450 billion dollars’ worth of United States merchandise … And if that offer were right, I’d do that again.” Which at least may free the British government to be as unsentimentally transactional.

    Trump and Starmer achieved big victories, albeit when painted in the most flattering terms. Starmer’s came on a historically low combination of vote share and voter turnout, Trump’s with fewer votes than Biden. But Trump will like that Starmer won a large majority. When May managed to lose hers in 2017, what little respect Trump had for her went with it.

    Starmer would much rather have had four years with Biden, and even more with Harris, another public prosecutor of the left. But he has to deal with the transatlantic relationship as it is, rather than as he would wish it to be, and this one is most unlikely to be special.

    Starmer is, moreover, a realist. Which is why he’ll also know that the second Trump presidency will be much more consequential than the first. Caution may have limited effect.

    Martin Farr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. How should Keir Starmer handle Donald Trump – and how’s it going so far? – https://theconversation.com/how-should-keir-starmer-handle-donald-trump-and-hows-it-going-so-far-248697

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: What has Brexit meant for the people of Scotland?

    Source: Scottish National Party

    With five years having passed since Scotland was dragged out of the EU as part of the UK, what has Brexit meant for people in Scotland?

    Brexit means…your weekly shop costs more than ever.

    Brexit means our NHS is missing out on thousands of doctors and nurses from the EU.

    Brexit means waiting in longer queues to travel abroad, and it has become much more difficult for anyone in Scotland to live or work in the EU – with touring musicians calling it a ‘catastrophe’.

    Scotland voted to stay in the EU.

    Scotland didn’t vote for Brexit.

    But the UK Government decided Scotland must Brexit.

    Brexit means there’s less public money, due to businesses losing revenue.

    Brexit means businesses who relied on buying goods from the EU, or selling to the EU, are having a really tough time of it.

    Thousands of businesses have had to close.

    Some politicians told us to  “vote No to stay in the EU” back in 2014. Bet they wish they could scrub those clips from the internet.

    Brexit means Scotland’s economy has lost out on billions of pounds due to trade barriers, with analysis showing exports have dropped by over 7%.

    Brexit means Nigel Farage is no longer the European Parliament’s problem. He’s now the UK’s problem.

    As he’s now the bookies’ favourite to be the next Prime Minister, he could soon be Scotland’s problem too.

    And Scotland didn’t vote for any of this.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: New Honorary King’s Counsel welcomed by Lord Chancellor

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    His Majesty The King has approved the award of 9 new Honorary King’s Counsel (KC Honoris Causa) in England and Wales.

    His Majesty The King has approved the award of nine new Honorary King’s Counsel (KC Honoris Causa). Their biographies are listed below. Honorary KC is awarded to those who have made a major contribution to the law of England and Wales, outside practice in the courts. 

    The Lord Chancellor will preside over the award ceremony at Westminster Hall in March 2025, where she will formally award the Honorary KC to the successful nominees. 

    Honorary King’s Counsel biographies 

    Professor Martin Dixon  

    Professor Dixon is a legal scholar specialising in real property law. He is the Professor of the Law of Real Property at the University of Cambridge, where he is also Director of the Cambridge Centre for Property Law (CCPL) and a Fellow of Queens’ College. 

    He was nominated for his work on property law through his scholarship, co-authorship of leading practitioner texts, and participation in Law Commission projects. Additionally, for his co-founding of the Modern Studies in Property Law Conference and for his Editorship of The Conveyancer. 

    Rebecca Hilsenrath 

    Rebecca Hilsenrath is a lawyer and public servant with a career spanning corporate law, human rights, and strategic leadership. Currently the interim Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), she has served as Chief Executive of the PHSO, Legal Adviser to the Attorney General, and Chief Executive of LawWorks. Previously, she was the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Legal Officer of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), where she championed equality and tackled human rights issues.   

    She was nominated for her efforts in promoting diversity in panel counsel appointments for the government and at the EHRC, increasing pro bono contributions in the legal sector, and leading international legal engagement in equality and human rights. 

    Rachel Horman-Brown 

    Rachel Horman-Brown is a solicitor focused on cases involving domestic abuse, stalking, coercive control, and forced marriage. As Director, she leads the Family Department at Watson Ramsbottom Solicitors. She is also the Chair of Paladin, the National Stalking Advocacy Service.   

    She was nominated for her campaigning for policy and legislative changes around stalking, domestic abuse, and violence against women and girls. In addition, for her work with Paladin, where she shaped legislation, including for the creation of coercive control as a specific criminal offence. She has also provided evidence to parliamentary committees and advisory groups, thereby influencing police practices and approaches to trauma. 

    Dr Laura Janes  

    Dr Laura Janes is a solicitor specialising in complex cases involving people detained in the criminal justice and mental health systems. As Legal Director at the Howard League for Penal Reform from 2016 to 2022, she led a legal service for young people in custody and spearheaded challenges against practices such as solitary confinement. She is a consultant solicitor at GT Stewart Solicitors and Scott-Moncrieff and Associates. Laura Janes is an advocate for access to justice, having founded Young Legal Aid Lawyers and held leadership roles in several legal organisations. She holds a professional doctorate in youth justice and teaches law at London South Bank University.  

    She was nominated for her contributions to the legal profession promoting access to justice, her work to drive policy changes, representing vulnerable individuals in prison, advocating for the rights of children and young people in custody and reforms to the IPP sentence.   

    Susanna McGibbon  

    Susanna McGibbon is an employed barrister and the current Treasury Solicitor, HM Procurator General and Permanent Secretary of the Government Legal Department (GLD). As the most senior Civil Service lawyer she is head of the Government Legal Profession. Her previous roles include serving as Director of GLD Litigation Group, Legal Director at the Department for Communities and Local Government and Legal Director at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. She is a Bencher of Lincoln’s Inn and this year holds the office of Keeper of the Walks. 

    Ms McGibbon was nominated for her legal advice on complex and sensitive issues within government especially in public and administrative law and national security. Also, for her leadership in a range of high-profile cases and inquiries and for her advocacy for diversity and inclusion across the legal profession.   

    Professor Renato Nazzini  

    Professor Nazzini is a legal scholar focusing on competition law, commercial arbitration, and construction law. He is the Director of the Centre of Construction Law and Dispute Resolution at King’s College London and a partner at LMS Legal LLP.   

    He was nominated for his contributions to competition law by developing policies on collective actions and abuse of dominance, influencing the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the 2008 European Commission Guidance on Article 102. He has also contributed to construction law, including by leading the Centre of Construction Law and Dispute Resolution at King’s College London, producing reports on construction adjudication and promoting diversity within the field.    

    Susan Willman  

    Susan Willman (known as Sue Willman) is a solicitor specialising in public interest litigation, focusing on human rights, environmental justice, and migrants’ rights. She is a senior consultant at legal aid firm, Deighton Pierce Glynn, and has led cases addressing systemic social and environmental injustices. She is also employed by the Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College, London as a Senior Lecturer, and Assistant Director of the King’s Legal Clinic. She has held key leadership roles, including Chair of the Law Society Human Rights Committee.    

    She was nominated for founding the Asylum Support Appeals Project (ASAP), providing free representation to destitute asylum-seekers. As well as for publishing articles, authoring a series of textbooks on asylum support, and advising a parliamentary committee on an inquiry to drive legislative reforms. 

    Douglas Wilson OBE 

    Douglas Wilson is a government lawyer currently serving as Director General and Head of the Attorney General’s Office. He has previously held positions such as Director of Legal Affairs and International Relations at GCHQ, Legal Director at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and has served in legal and diplomatic roles at UK posts overseas. 

    He was nominated for advising on issues such as Brexit, military operations, and intelligence cooperation, which shaped the law on the use of military force, cyberspace, and investigatory powers. Furthermore, he has promoted effective and inclusive legal practice within government.  

    Professor Adrian Zuckerman 

    Professor Zuckerman is a scholar in civil procedure and evidence law. He is Emeritus Professor of Civil Procedure at the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of University College, Oxford. He is Editor-in-Chief of the Civil Justice Quarterly and a Consultant Editor of Halsbury’s Laws of England. 

    Professor Zuckerman is a prominent commentator on the administration of civil justice. He has influenced legislative policy and judicial practice, notably through contributions to the Woolf Report on Access to Justice, and the Jackson Review of Civil Litigation Costs. He has campaigned for improving access to court and for making justice available to all at proportionate cost. His work on criminal evidence refocused evidence scholarship around fundamental normative principles. 

    He was nominated for his contributions to the Civil Procedure Rules in England and Wales. His academic work, particularly “Zuckerman on Civil Procedure,” is cited in courts across the common law world. 

    Further information 

    Honorary KC is awarded by HM The King, on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is advised by a selection panel of senior representatives from across the legal sector, civil service, judiciary, and academia. More information about the purpose of the award can be found on GOV.UK. 

    For further information, please contact the Ministry of Justice press office. Follow us @MoJGovUK. 

    Updates to this page

    Published 31 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Brexit anniversary sparks call for much closer relationship with EU

    Source: Green Party of England and Wales

    On the fifth anniversary of the UK’s exit from the European Union, Green MP Ellie Chowns said:  

    “These five years have seen the economic, social and political costs of leaving the European Union become ever clearer. 

    “Far from ‘taking back control’, we have all lost out. 

    “Young people have been deprived of the chance to easily study and work in the European Union, while small businesses have found it increasingly difficult to export, and the UK is increasingly isolated on the international stage. 

    “No wonder, the proportion of the public believing Brexit to have been the right decision is at its lowest since 2020. (1) 

    “The Green Party is very clear that people and planet would benefit from much closer relationships between our country and the European Union.  

    “We will continue to press the Labour government to be braver and bolder in overcoming the negative impacts of Brexit.  

    “Full membership of the EU remains the best option for the UK, and we are in favour of pursuing a policy to re-join as soon as the political will is present.    

    “Of course, that means building the widespread public support we need before a decision to rejoin is made.  

    “There are win-win first steps that the government should be taking today. For instance, working with the EU on a youth mobility scheme that opens up the European Union to our youngsters. 

    “We should be working with the EU to tackle the twin crises of climate breakdown and biodiversity loss in the face of US President Donald Trump’s disastrous decision to pull the US out of the Paris climate agreement. 

    “We should also rejoin the Customs Union to begin to overcome the obstacles that small businesses have faced in trading with our closest partners since Brexit.  

    “While joining the Single Market would provide benefits in terms of free movement of people, goods, services and capital, membership of the Single Market without membership of the EU would not be an ideal long-term solution because the UK would not be a full partner in decision making processes.  

    “We’ve learned from the divisiveness of Brexit that binary choices push people apart rather than bring people together.   

    “So, we are proposing the use of citizens’ assemblies to support the wider public to make well-informed decisions about complicated political issues such as our future membership of the EU.” 

    Mark Ormiston, a sixth generation managing director of Ormiston Wire that manufactures a high quality products used in suspending lights, art installations, yacht rigging and surgical procedures, said Brexit is making it ever harder to get its components into final products manufactured abroad. 

    Mark Ormiston “We supply components not a final product so if the end product moves offshore, we have to try and supply that export market. With Brexit small exporters are being devastated and we must work very hard to persuade companies to use our quality and expertise.” 

    NOTES TO EDITORS 

    (1) https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51484-how-do-britons-feel-about-brexit-five-years-on 

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Rachel Reeves’ route to economic growth is a slow one – and there are no guarantees voters will be patient enough

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City Political Economy Research Centre, City St George’s, University of London

    Go My Media/Shutterstock

    After six months of talking down the economy and warning of tough times ahead, the UK chancellor Rachel Reeves has changed her tune. She is now much more optimistic about Britain’s economic prospects and has announced a raft of measures including major pension reforms designed to unlock cash to boost growth and productivity.

    But Labour’s political problem is that none of her plans will have an immediate impact on the UK’s anaemic growth rate – the economy has virtually flatlined for the last six months. From day one Reeves has put growth at the centre of her plans, and a lack of it will mean tough choices in the spring, when she must spell out government spending plans for the next three years.

    The government is focusing on a wide range of “supply side” reforms, including unleashing pension funds to invest in Britain, as well as relaxing the planning system and building infrastructure – many of which have an uncanny resemblance to measures once proposed by former prime minister Liz Truss.

    At the heart of these plans is a big increase in investment in infrastructure to boost productivity – things like roads, public transport and technology – where Britain lags behind its major rivals.

    But there’s a big catch. The independent spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), estimates that it will take years – or even decades – for infrastructure projects to transform the British economy, with only a 0.1% boost in growth in the near term for every additional 1% on public investment.

    Without other measures that have a more immediate impact, the political risk to Labour is that its pledge to make everyone better off may feel hollow to voters.

    The challenges are particularly acute for big transport projects, as the debacle of HS2 illustrates. Even with changes to the planning system, work on expanding Heathrow airport is unlikely to start before 2030. And major projects like the Lower Thames crossing between Kent and Essex and the Sizewell C nuclear reactor in Suffolk have been in the planning stage for nearly 20 years.

    Electricity supply is another crucial area, with the need for more renewable energy and an expansion of the grid. This will now need to be financed largely by private capital as the government has scaled back its “green new deal”.

    So how exactly will all these big plans be financed? The government is hoping to unleash additional investment from the UK pension fund industry, by changing the rules to allow defined benefit (sometimes called final salary) schemes with surpluses to invest more widely.

    Although there is currently £160 billion available in these schemes, this could change if interest rates fall. It is also not clear how attractive such UK infrastructure investment would even be. Many projects, such as in privatised industries like water and electricity, will at least partly be funded by increased charges to consumers.

    The government’s own spending plans to increase public investment are relatively modest. These plans bring government capital spending (which allows for borrowing under the fiscal rules) just slightly above the historic average.

    Planning reform could also prove problematic. Although the government is changing some of the rules, especially in relation to housebuilding, planning decisions will be still made by local authorities. In many cases these will face strong local opposition, potentially delaying decisions.

    This points to the larger political problem for the government. The changes will not eliminate the tension between the government’s growth and environmental objectives, with the latter potentially a crucial issue in many of the marginal seats won by Labour in the last election.

    Heathrow expansion will put the government’s climate targets in serious jeopardy.
    Dinendra Haria/Shutterstock

    Prime Minister Keir Starmer has described the need to pull out the “weeds” of regulation as vital to growth plans. He has already sacked the head of the key regulatory agency, the Competition and Markets Authority. But allowing more consolidation of British industry could create monopolies, which tend to raise prices, increase profits and neglect investment.

    There are even greater concerns over possible deregulation of the financial sector, which could abolish many of the safeguards established after the global financial crisis in 2008.

    What’s missing?

    The government is much less clear on what it is going to do about the supply of skilled labour than the availability of capital. Shortages of skilled workers could limit progress on these big infrastructure projects if workers are also needed to build housing.

    Government plans for boosting skills training, and the funding for further and higher education, are still works in progress. Meanwhile, limits on immigration will reduce the number of skilled construction workers. And the details of the government’s plan to boost the labour force by getting more people on disability benefit back to work have yet to be spelled out.

    As Labour sets out its long-term growth plan, dark clouds are looming. In particular, in global terms the British economy is one of the most dependent on international trade and investment. But most of its trade is with its two largest trading partners – the EU and the USA.

    Growing protectionism in the US, coupled with a lack of access to EU markets caused by Brexit, could have a significant effect on Britain’s growth. The UK economy is projected by the IMF to grow by just 1.6% this year, which is still weak by historic standards.

    It may be of little consolation to the public if this is higher than in France and Germany. Reeves may well find that’s simply not enough to satisfy the expectations of voters.

    Steve Schifferes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Rachel Reeves’ route to economic growth is a slow one – and there are no guarantees voters will be patient enough – https://theconversation.com/rachel-reeves-route-to-economic-growth-is-a-slow-one-and-there-are-no-guarantees-voters-will-be-patient-enough-248690

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Rachael Reeves’ route to economic growth is a slow one – and there are no guarantees voters will be patient enough

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City Political Economy Research Centre, City St George’s, University of London

    Go My Media/Shutterstock

    After six months of talking down the economy and warning of tough times ahead, the UK chancellor Rachel Reeves has changed her tune. She is now much more optimistic about Britain’s economic prospects and has announced a raft of measures including major pension reforms designed to unlock cash to boost growth and productivity.

    But Labour’s political problem is that none of her plans will have an immediate impact on the UK’s anaemic growth rate – the economy has virtually flatlined for the last six months. From day one Reeves has put growth at the centre of her plans, and a lack of it will mean tough choices in the spring, when she must spell out government spending plans for the next three years.

    The government is focusing on a wide range of “supply side” reforms, including unleashing pension funds to invest in Britain, as well as relaxing the planning system and building infrastructure – many of which have an uncanny resemblance to measures once proposed by former prime minister Liz Truss.

    At the heart of these plans is a big increase in investment in infrastructure to boost productivity – things like roads, public transport and technology – where Britain lags behind its major rivals.

    But there’s a big catch. The independent spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), estimates that it will take years – or even decades – for infrastructure projects to transform the British economy, with only a 0.1% boost in growth in the near term for every additional 1% on public investment.

    Without other measures that have a more immediate impact, the political risk to Labour is that its pledge to make everyone better off may feel hollow to voters.

    The challenges are particularly acute for big transport projects, as the debacle of HS2 illustrates. Even with changes to the planning system, work on expanding Heathrow airport is unlikely to start before 2030. And major projects like the Lower Thames crossing between Kent and Essex and the Sizewell C nuclear reactor in Suffolk have been in the planning stage for nearly 20 years.

    Electricity supply is another crucial area, with the need for more renewable energy and an expansion of the grid. This will now need to be financed largely by private capital as the government has scaled back its “green new deal”.

    So how exactly will all these big plans be financed? The government is hoping to unleash additional investment from the UK pension fund industry, by changing the rules to allow defined benefit (sometimes called final salary) schemes with surpluses to invest more widely.

    Although there is currently £160 billion available in these schemes, this could change if interest rates fall. It is also not clear how attractive such UK infrastructure investment would even be. Many projects, such as in privatised industries like water and electricity, will at least partly be funded by increased charges to consumers.

    The government’s own spending plans to increase public investment are relatively modest. These plans bring government capital spending (which allows for borrowing under the fiscal rules) just slightly above the historic average.

    Planning reform could also prove problematic. Although the government is changing some of the rules, especially in relation to housebuilding, planning decisions will be still made by local authorities. In many cases these will face strong local opposition, potentially delaying decisions.

    This points to the larger political problem for the government. The changes will not eliminate the tension between the government’s growth and environmental objectives, with the latter potentially a crucial issue in many of the marginal seats won by Labour in the last election.

    Heathrow expansion will put the government’s climate targets in serious jeopardy.
    Dinendra Haria/Shutterstock

    Prime Minister Keir Starmer has described the need to pull out the “weeds” of regulation as vital to growth plans. He has already sacked the head of the key regulatory agency, the Competition and Markets Authority. But allowing more consolidation of British industry could create monopolies, which tend to raise prices, increase profits and neglect investment.

    There are even greater concerns over possible deregulation of the financial sector, which could abolish many of the safeguards established after the global financial crisis in 2008.

    What’s missing?

    The government is much less clear on what it is going to do about the supply of skilled labour than the availability of capital. Shortages of skilled workers could limit progress on these big infrastructure projects if workers are also needed to build housing.

    Government plans for boosting skills training, and the funding for further and higher education, are still works in progress. Meanwhile, limits on immigration will reduce the number of skilled construction workers. And the details of the government’s plan to boost the labour force by getting more people on disability benefit back to work have yet to be spelled out.

    As Labour sets out its long-term growth plan, dark clouds are looming. In particular, in global terms the British economy is one of the most dependent on international trade and investment. But most of its trade is with its two largest trading partners – the EU and the USA.

    Growing protectionism in the US, coupled with a lack of access to EU markets caused by Brexit, could have a significant effect on Britain’s growth. The UK economy is projected by the IMF to grow by just 1.6% this year, which is still weak by historic standards.

    It may be of little consolation to the public if this is higher than in France and Germany. Reeves may well find that’s simply not enough to satisfy the expectations of voters.

    Steve Schifferes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Rachael Reeves’ route to economic growth is a slow one – and there are no guarantees voters will be patient enough – https://theconversation.com/rachael-reeves-route-to-economic-growth-is-a-slow-one-and-there-are-no-guarantees-voters-will-be-patient-enough-248690

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Will Labour’s plan for growth actually work? Two economists respond

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Phil Tomlinson, Professor of Industrial Strategy, Co-Director Centre for Governance, Regulation and Industrial Strategy (CGR&IS), University of Bath

    Ceri Breeze/Shutterstock

    The UK chancellor Rachel Reeves says the Labour government will go “further and faster” to kick-start the British economy. Economic growth – to raise living standards and fund public services – is apparently a core mission of this government.

    Yet since the general election last July, this growth has proved elusive.

    In fairness, the UK economy been pretty stagnant for a long time. And as Reeves sometimes mentions, she arguably inherited the worst set of economic circumstances since 1974.

    Nevertheless, the government has been guilty of some major own goals. The means-testing of winter fuel payments drew derision, while the public framing of a “painful” budget in October 2024 dented business and consumer confidence.

    So after a difficult first six months in office, the chancellor’s big speech on January 29 was an opportunity for a major economic reset. And there were some signs of encouragement.

    She reaffirmed, for example, a commitment to reforming the UK’s antiquated planning laws for residential and commercial building. And there was a big emphasis on public investment, which is to rise to 2.6% of GDP over this parliament, compared to the previous government’s plans of 1.9%.

    Airport expansion at Heathrow (and to a lesser extent, Luton and Gatwick) aims to enhance global connectivity and increase trade and investment, especially with emerging economies.

    But those plans, which run counter to the government’s net zero goals, unsurprisingly sparked the ire of environmental campaigners, as well as some senior Labour MPs and party donors.

    They may also widen the UK’s regional inequalities, drawing more investment and economic activity to the south-east. The same goes for the notion of building Europe’s “Silicon Valley” between Oxford and Cambridge.

    That said, some other regions may benefit from announcements which included a £28 million investment in Cornish Metals (for materials for solar panels and wind turbines), and £63 million for advanced fuels which should bring more high-skilled jobs to areas like Teesside. There were also plans for housing and commercial redevelopment around Old Trafford in Manchester.

    Some of these projects will form part of the government’s new industrial strategy, which is expected in the spring.

    Red tape restrictions

    One word to look out for when that strategy is unveiled is “Brexit”, which continues to act as a drag on the UK’s growth. Yet in her speech, while Reeves used the “growth” word more than 50 times, she mentioned Brexit just once.

    It deserves much more attention. For investment in the UK has been lacklustre since the 2016 referendum, and research shows that post-Brexit red tape has hampered exports, especially for smaller firms. Overall, the UK’s exports of goods are down by 9% since 2020, while similar economies have seen their exports rise by 1%.

    There are government plans for more wind turbines.
    Nuttawut Uttamaharad/Shutterstock

    The chancellor has previously suggested a Brexit “reset”, and there may be a future a deal to ease some Brexit agri-food trade barriers. Reeves has also floated the possibility of the UK joining a “Pan-Euro” customs zone.

    Other moves which might help UK manufacturing include a bill that would allow the government to keep pace with new EU product safety regulations, and anything else which avoids new administrative costs for businesses.

    Yet despite the government perhaps adopting a more conciliatory tone with the EU, there are frustrations with the UK’s “red lines”, such as a refusal to agree to a scheme which would make it easier for young EU citizens to travel, work and study in the UK, and for young UK nationals to do the same in EU member states.

    Execution

    And while the chancellor’s speech highlighted the government’s long-term ambitions for growth, there was little to address current weaknesses quickly.

    For despite a change to Labour’s self-imposed fiscal rules last autumnn, the government still faces significant public borrowing constraints. This will restrict the amount of investment required to fundamentally transform public infrastructure, without major private sector support.

    And planning reforms, infrastructure projects, and new trade deals all take time and face political, legal and logistical hurdles. This will also delay growth.

    Labour’s ambitions for a more pro-growth, pro-business agenda mark a positive shift, at least in tone. But actual, visible, tangible growth depends on execution. This in turn depends on private sector money, overcoming bureaucratic hurdles, and cutting the Brexit red-tape that continues to hamper trade with the EU.

    Without effective action across the board, including immediate fiscal stimulus, the chancellor’s words may begin to sound a little hollow if the mission for growth soon starts to look like mission impossible.

    Phil Tomlinson receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for Made Smarter Innovation: Centre for People-Led Digitalisation.

    David Bailey receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council’s UK in a Changing Europe Programme.

    – ref. Will Labour’s plan for growth actually work? Two economists respond – https://theconversation.com/will-labours-plan-for-growth-actually-work-two-economists-respond-248581

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Minister for Latin America and Caribbean speech at RUSI Latin American Security Conference 2025

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Latin America and Caribbean, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, gave a speech at the RUSI Latin American Security Conference 2025.

    Thank you, Malcolm. I was just saying to Malcolm before that the last time I was here was to hear Douglas Alexander speak. This was at a time before Brexit, before COVID.

    We had a coalition government – he was the Shadow Foreign Secretary then, and much in the world has changed since.

    And it’s been far too long – that was, I think 2014, so 11 years ago. And I hope that I’ll be back here – well let’s see if I’m invited back here after this morning!

    Anyway, thank you Malcolm for that warm introduction.

    And good morning, everyone – bom dÍa, buenos dias a todos y todas.

    If you are joining us from Latin America, as I believe some people are online. Thank you for getting up so early – muchismas gracias.

    My Spanish is atrocious, but I am getting some lessons, so hopefully that will be improving soon. And as the Brazilian Ambassador reminded me yesterday, a little bit of Portuguese wouldn’t go amiss either, so I’ll be working on that.

    Before I say anything else, I want to thank RUSI for bringing us together for the third Latin American Security Conference – and to all of your for making this a priority.

    I have a passion for Latin America, and it is great when you get the opportunity to be in a room full of other people that share that view.

    When I meet with Latin American leaders, they tell me that they do feel that they have an important role to play alongside the UK.

    Nobody has told me that they feel ignored by the UK – which is good – but they have all said that they have the desire to be more included in the future.

    The geopolitics that we all spend our time trying to understand and to shape, drives and shapes the prospects for many of the people in Latin America – whether that’s climate change, economic growth and security, in every sense, they are priorities there exactly as they are priorities for us here.

    The war in Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, the role of China, US elections – all influence the politics of Latin America.

    Throw in the descent of Venezuela into autocracy, and our as-yet un-ending tragedy that is Haiti – and we have got a lot to talk about together.

    As we approach 200 years of bilateral relations with Brazil, Argentina and Colombia, we should consider how far we’ve come, but also what needs to come next.

    Speaking recently to the next generation of officer cadets at the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth, some 200 years since the days when John Illingworth and Admiral Lord Cochrane supported growing independence across the region, our defence and security co-operation is strong. In Latin America there is pride in our past relationships, and a strong sense that we should do more, not less, together in the future.

    Combatting serious organised crime to protect communities here as well as there, including the heinous trade in human misery that is illegal migration; getting urgent humanitarian relief to those bearing the brunt of natural disasters across the region; pursuing Antarctic science and wider marine protection.

    Perhaps the fact that the UK has positive relationships in Latin America, the fact that it is a relatively safe, peaceful, democratic region, means the spotlight doesn’t rest on it all that often from here in the UK.

    But I see an open, growing, industrious region of the world, without which this government will find it that much harder to achieve our missions of growth, security and climate action.

    Looking across Latin America, the lesson is clear. Without security, you can’t have growth. And without growth, climate action is impossible.

    As we’ve all said hundreds of times – the first responsibility of every government, the bedrock on which the economy sits, and the ultimate guarantor of everything we hold dear, is security.

    While the focus of our attention is rightly on the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Latin America has led the news twice in recent days here in the UK.

    Extraordinary as that is – and I know because I’ve spoken to them, that Colombia and Panama do not always welcome the reason for this attention – there is a place for Latin American countries in geopolitics now that is changing.

    With attention, I think, being positive, comes opportunity.

    Panama – no longer on the financial services grey list; stable, democratic, and inviting infrastructure investment from the UK. We’re seen as a respectful, trusted partner, and they want to do business with us.

    Latin American countries really do want to work with the UK. They see the long-term value in the tailored offer from the investment and security space. We can be proud of it, but we need to make it easier for countries in Latin America to do business with us.

    And I would like to thank Ecuador particularly at the moment, for their term on the Security Council.

    Because we have so much in common with them as independent nations – we must all stand firm in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, particularly as Russia turns its sights on Latin America as a key target for disinformation, because we know the truth.

    This illegal and unprovoked war by a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council is a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    It makes us all, wherever we are, less safe.

    And with so much strong support for Ukraine from across Latin America. I know you will all be looking forward to hearing from Yaroslav Brisiuck from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs later today – on deepening dialogue and cooperation with Latin America and the Caribbean.

    We are not the only country who sees Latin America’s strategic relevance and weight.

    We know our allies in the US are considering their approach as well. The fact that Secretary Rubio’s first foreign trip is to the region, and that he spoke in his confirmation hearing about the positive relationships as well as the challenges that the US faces there demonstrates the centrality of Latin America for US foreign Policy.

    This is no bad thing. And whilst we will not always agree on the specifics every day of this approach or that, we believe that we must continue to be in close dialogue with the region and the US, to work towards common goals.

    When it comes to China’s engagement in the region, we must understand why so many Latin American countries pursue partnerships with China on development, investment and trade.

    But our job – where we can – is to provide Latin America with a choice. An alternative that many say that they want. Maybe not always cheaper, but better.

    From now on, our approach to China will be consistent – cooperating where we can, competing where we have different interests, and challenging where we must.

    But the most important thing about this, is consistency.

    The schizophrenic posturing doesn’t work.

    It’s about calm, straightforward diplomacy, never ignoring issues where we fundamentally disagree, such as the detention of Jimmy Lai.

    But cooperating where it’s in our interests, especially on climate and growth.

    But we know that sustainable growth can’t happen without security.

    Criminal gangs are multinational. Their power to feed off misery while making billions feeds of weak state institutions, drives corruption, deforestation, drug deaths and sex trafficking.

    They pursue profit at any cost, with little cost to themselves, through the production and trafficking of cocaine and other illegal drugs,  destroying lives, communities, and ecosystems in the process.

    Where organised crime gangs are in competition with the state – this is why our role in supporting the peace process in Colombia… this shows us why, it is so vital.

    Illegal mining, deforestation, and the loss of species, human rights abuses, organised immigration crime, channelling of illicit finance, modern slavery, I could go on.

    The impact is being felt now in Latin America, and on the streets of Britain,
    Most of the world’s cocaine produced in Latin America.  

    It transits through Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, before being trafficked via increasingly complex, global routes, entering the UK via European ports.

    But let’s be honest with ourselves about this.

    It is cocaine demand in this country that is fuelling so much misery and insecurity across Latin America.

    A kilo of cocaine was valued at approximately £1,600 – at the start of its journey in Latin America.

    But by the time it reaches the UK, its value leaps by more than 1600% to more than £28,000. And that is one hell of a margin. That’s why this trade is so pervasive.

    We are with working France and the Netherlands and European partners, on joint approaches to tackle maritime cocaine trafficking from Latin America into the UK. And we are working with our partners across the region on this as well.

    This includes £19 million from the UK across six Latin American countries over five years. This is not just about seizures.

    We’re backing our partners’ efforts, following the money, building stronger regional links,  and tackling the flow of illicit finance.

    In Ecuador – we are working with our partners to make sure fewer vulnerable people fall prey to transnational drugs cartels, whether as victims and perpetrators of Serious Organised Crime, as well as working alongside US law enforcement, to conduct regular counternarcotic and other illicit trafficking operations in the Caribbean Sea.

    Talking face to face with the brave, specialist law enforcement teams in Ecuador, Colombia and the Caribbean, it is clear to me just how much they value UK expertise and support. And how much value we can add to their operations, because we listen to their needs, respect their expertise and are partners with them for the long term.

    In Peru, Brazil, Brazil, and Ecuador – we are working together to make financial investigations into mining and logging crimes more effective.

    In Colombia – working with state institutions to improve the enforcement of environmental law is at the heart of our work for forest protection.

    Because we can’t protect a single stick of rainforest. It is regional governments that do that. But we can help them with the tools they need to do the job.

    Access to satellite imagery, intelligence and security co-operation, support with judicial processes, police kit, registration of vehicles. Where we can help, we must.

    The Home Office is working with the courageous Colombian police in Bogotá – as part of their work developing key partnerships to identify and disrupt threats to the UK Border, from illegal migration and the trafficking of drugs.

    Together, we are now using advanced technical equipment, enhanced analytical and detection techniques, and improved intelligence flows – to strengthen border security and our collective ability to detect and prevent the movement of cocaine to the UK and Europe, especially in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru.

    I have also made it my priority in my early months in the job to improve our departmental cooperation with the Home Office, The MoD and the NCA. The new Joint Home Office/FCDO Migration Unit will strengthen the cooperation in Whitehall and our efforts on the Ground.

    The Latin America that hundreds of thousands of UK citizens a year visit today is 660 million people strong and counting – with a combined GDP of nearly $6 trillion.

    And happily, in all my visits to the region as well as our conversations in the UK, our partners across Latin America have made it clear that they share this government’s ambition – to achieve long-term, resilient growth, and bring opportunity to people across our countries.

    This is something we are working together to achieve across a vast range of work.

    In Chile, during my visit at the start of the year, I saw how Anglo-American are introducing innovative, safer, and more responsible mining techniques.

    Extraordinary, as someone who comes from the North East of England, married to the son of Welsh miners, to see a remotely operated mine. Without mining obviously there is no decarbonisation, but this is mining that has been done from the centre of Santiago, out in a mine with nobody underground, nobody’s life at risk. It is really something to behold.

    When I travelled to President Sheinbaum’s inauguration, in Mexico we signed a new Memorandum of Understanding with the Mexican Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development – which will boost trade, advance sustainable agriculture, and renew our partnership.

    And at the end of last year,  the UK became the first European nation to accede to the growing Indo-Pacific trade bloc, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or ‘CPTPP’, joining Chile, Mexico, and Peru.

    This makes our collective GDP £12 trillion, means zero tariffs for more than 90% of exports between members, and opens up market opportunities across three continents.

    And building on the four agreements with the region we already have – this does represent a huge opportunity for businesses.

    Of course, none of this is possible if the bigger picture is not in place – which bring me to peace and democracy.

    Latin America is now home to many stable democracies – we share so many values.

    And we are working together to uphold human rights, and the rule of law, across the region and at the UN.

    When it comes to the Falkland Islands, our position is steadfast, and our commitment to defending the Falkland Islanders’ right of self-determination will not waiver.

    Only the Falkland Islanders can and should decide their own future.

    This approach underpins the South Atlantic cooperation agreement with Argentina – announced by the Foreign Secretary and former Argentine Foreign Minister Diana Mondino, last September.

    We are grateful for our work in partnership and our dialogue on these issues with Argentina.

    When it comes to Colombia, this government will  advocate for implementation of the 2016 peace  agreement, as a priority.

    We have learned ourselves, through Northern Ireland, that no piece of paper achieves peace. It’s that consistent work of decades by political and community leaders that keeps peace. Peace is hard, requires constant vigilance, but the UK is with Colombia, for the long term, of this journey.

    But the impact of Venezuela’s catastrophic leadership is being felt across the region.

    That is why the UK sanctioned 15 new members of Nicolas Maduro’s regime, who are responsible for undermining democracy, and committing serious human rights abuses – on 10 January, the same day he asserted power illegitimately in Venezuela once again.

    And at a time where we know that you’re all worried about the wider impacts of the abhorrent violence in Haiti, as well as providing £28 million a year to the multilateral institutions still operating on the ground to support the population,  we are providing £5 million to the Kenyan-led Multinational Security Support Mission – working to bring about the stability that is so desperately needed, to pave the way for free and fair elections.

    However far away that prospect feels today, we must never give up hope.

    No country can do right by its citizens, or play its part in the world, when people live in fear and without hope.

    Our determination to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss binds us together. The region is home to so many of the natural assets on which our global prosperity depends.

    A quarter of the world’s tropical rainforest, including the mighty Amazon, and massive deposits of the metals and minerals we all need to make a leap to clean energy.

    The government welcomes the strong leadership we’re seeing from within the region. Building on generations of care led by indigenous people, and decades of pioneering innovation.

    We’re working together with Brazil, to make the next big climate summit in Belém a success, and I’m delighted that Brazil and Chile are working with us through the finance mission of the new Global Clean Power Alliance that the Prime Minister launched at the G20 in Rio with President Lula last year.

    When it comes to minerals that are critical to the transition away from fossil fuels, and toward clean energy, including two thirds of the world’s lithium, the reserves that we need for batteries, Latin America has the resources, and the UK holds the markets and the institutions.

    So we’re working together – across government in the UK and with businesses, and with partners across the region – to take a strategic approach to deliver more diversified and secure supply chains, while raising standards, and mining more responsibly.

    So to close I just want to thank RUSI for making it a priority to bring us together to discuss how the UK, Latin America and our wider partners and allies can work together even more effectively for our shared security and prosperity.

    I’ve sensed a real appetite for this from our partners across the region, but I want all of us here in the UK to be ambitious about what is possible when we work with Latin America.

    And I want us all to recognise the importance of Latin American leadership in changing what is possible at a global level as well, on the challenges and opportunities we face.

    Sure – this government here can improve our economy, we can do better on our security, and our borders, we can do our bit to reduce carbon emissions and support work against climate change.

    We can do that without changing our approach to Latin America. But how much better, and how much more successful, and how much more secure any gains we make will be if we work alongside our partners, our allies in Latin America, now and in the years ahead.

    Thank you.

    Updates to this page

    Published 30 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Impact of Brexit on Scottish Trade

    Source: Scottish Government

    New figures show possible cost of increased trade barriers.

    Analysis published today by the Office of the Chief Economic Advisor has estimated Brexit trade barriers could impact Scotland’s economy by £4 billion.

    This estimated economic cost is from the reduction in trade alone – not counting changes to productivity, investment or migration.

    Business Minister Richard Lochhead said the report demonstrated the urgent need to reverse the damage of Brexit to boost living standards and revenue for the NHS.

    According to the Trade Modelling Report, Scottish exports could be lower by 7.2% or £3 billion compared to continued EU membership.

    The chemical and pharmaceutical sector is estimated to be one of the hardest hit by post-Brexit trade barriers, with an estimated 9.1% reduction in output, followed by the computer and electronics sector with an estimated 7.7% fall. The 4.9% output drop estimated for the agrifood sector represents a loss of £827 million.

    Business Minister Richard Lochhead said:

    “On the eve of the fifth anniversary of Brexit, these new figures highlight the urgent need to change course to boost the economy and increase public revenue for the NHS.

    “This is the latest in a long line of studies highlighting how badly Brexit continues to impact Scotland and should cause the UK Government to consider its approach to economic growth.

    “The Scottish Government has been clear that Scotland’s place is in the EU and the huge European single market. But we are also a voice for greater co-operation with the EU right now and we urge the new UK Government to forge a much closer relationship with our fellow Europeans.”  

    Background

    Scottish Government’s Brexit Trade Modelling Report

    The report is the first to specifically analyse the impact of the UK’s post-Brexit trade agreements on Scotland’s economy. It examines the expected effect of actual or potential free trade agreements between the UK and Australia, India, Switzerland and Turkey, as well as the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the UK and EU. It then compares that with the trade benefits Scotland would have received from continued EU membership.

    This report makes estimates based on the impact of trade barriers and does not account for changes in productivity and investment due to Brexit. This means that some of the headline figures differ from those in other reports – such as in modelling by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which showed that UK GDP could be 5.7% lower – as they look at the overall impact of Brexit on the economy.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Chancellor vows to go further and faster to kickstart economic growth

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves spoke at Siemens Healthineers in Oxfordshire on 29 January 2025.

    Thank you everyone. 

    It’s fantastic to be here at Siemens at this amazing facility.  

    Today, I want to talk about economic growth. 

    Why it matters.  

    How we achieve it.  

    And what we are going to do further and faster to deliver it. 

    Before we came into office… 

    … the Prime Minister and I have said loud and clear:  

    Economic growth is the number one mission of this government.  

    Without growth, we cannot cut hospital waiting lists or put more police on the streets.  

    Without growth, we cannot meet our climate goals… 

    … or give the next generation the opportunities that they need to thrive. 

    But most of all… 

    … without economic growth… 

    … we cannot improve the lives of ordinary working people.  

    Because growth isn’t simply about lines on a graph. 

    It’s about the pounds in people’s pockets. 

    The vibrancy of our high streets. 

    And the thriving businesses that create wealth, jobs and new opportunities for us, for our children, and grandchildren.  

    We will have succeeded in our mission when working people are better off. 

    I know that the cost of living crisis is still very real for many families across Britain.  

    The sky high inflation and interest rates of the past few years have left a deep mark… 

    … with too many people still making sacrifices to pay the bills and to pay their mortgages.   

    But we have begun to turn this around.  

    Everything I see as I travel around the country gives me more belief in Britain. 

    And more optimism about our future. 

    Because we as a country have huge potential.  

    A country of strong communities, with small and local businesses at their heart.  

    We are at the forefront of some of the most exciting developments in the world… 

    … like artificial intelligence and life sciences…  

    … with great companies like DeepMind, AstraZeneca, Rolls Royce… and of course Siemens…  

    … delivering jobs and investment across Britain. 

    We have fundamental strengths – in our history, in our language, and in our legal system – to compete in a global economy.  

    But for too long, that potential has been held back.  

    For too long, we have accepted low expectations and accepted decline. 

    We no longer have to do that.  

    We can do so much better. 

    Low growth is not our destiny.  

    But growth will not come without a fight.  

    Without a government willing to take the right decisions now to change our country’s future for the better. 

    That’s what our Plan for Change is all about. 

    That is what drives me as Chancellor.  

    In my Mais lecture in March last year, I set out my approach to achieving economic growth… 

    … and identified the fundamental barriers to realising our full potential.  

    The productive capacity of the UK economy has become far too weak.  

    Productivity, the driver of living standards…   

    …has grown more slowly here than in countries like Germany and the US.  

    The supply side of our economy has suffered due to chronic underinvestment… 

    … and stifling and unpredictable regulation…  

    … not helped by the shocks we have faced in recent years. 

    [redacted political content]

    The strategy that I have consistently set out… 

    … is to grow the supply-side of our economy… 

    … recognising that first and foremost… 

    … it is businesses, investors and entrepreneurs who drive economic growth… 

    … a government that systematically removes the barriers that they face – one by one and has their back 

    This strategy has three essential elements: 

    First, stability in our politics, our public finances and our economy – the basic condition for secure economic growth. 

    Second, reform – reform which makes it easier for businesses to trade, to raise finance and to build.  

    And third, investment, the lifeblood of economic growth. 

    Let me explain each of those in turn.  

    Stability – the first line of our manifesto was a promise to bring stability to the public finances.  

    It is the rock upon which everything else is built. 

    And it is the essential foundation of our Plan for Change.  

    Because economic stability is the precondition for economic growth. 

    That’s why the first piece of legislation that we passed as a government was the Budget Responsibility Act… 

    … so never again will we see our independent forecaster sidelined.

    [redacted political content]

    At my first Budget in October… 

    … it was my duty as Chancellor… 

    … to fix the foundations of our economy, and repair the public finances that we inherited. 

    To restore stability and create the conditions for growth and investment.  

    I set out new fiscal rules which are non-negotiable, and will always be met. 

    We began to rebuild our NHS and our schools – the start of a programme of public service reform.  

    I capped the rate of corporation tax – and I extended our generous capital allowances for the duration of this parliament – as the CBI and the BCC have long called for.  

    And I protected working people after a cost of living crisis… 

    … by freezing fuel duty… 

    … and with no increases in their National Insurance, Income Tax or VAT. 

    But taking the right decisions and the responsible decisions does not always mean taking the easy decisions. 

    The increase in Employers’ National Insurance contributions has consequences on business and beyond.   

    I said that up front in my Budget speech. 

    I accept that there are costs to responsibility. 

    But the costs of irresponsibility would have been far higher. 

    Those who oppose my Budget know that too. 

    That is why, since October, I have seen no alternative put forward [redacted political content].

    No alternatives to deal with the challenges we face.  

    No alternatives to restoring economic stability… 

    … and therefore no plan for driving economic growth. 

    Alongside stability, we need to drive forward the reform which makes investment more likely… 

    … by removing the constraints on the supply side of our economy… 

    … making it easier for businesses to trade… 

    … to raise finance… 

    … and to build.  

    Let me first address our approach to trade.  

    We stand at a moment of global change.  

    In that context, we should be guided by one clear principle above all.  

    To act in the national interest… 

    … for our economy… 

    … for our businesses… 

    … and for the British people. 

    That means building on our special relationship with the United States under President Trump. 

    The Prime Minister discussed the vital importance of growth with the President last weekend…  

    … and I look forward to working with the new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent… 

    … to deepen our economic relationship in the months and the years ahead. 

    Acting in our national interest also means resetting our relationship with the EU – our nearest and our largest trading partner – to drive growth and support business.  

    We are pragmatic about the challenges that we have inherited from the last government’s failed Brexit deal.  

    But we are also ambitious in our goals.  

    [redacted political content]

    … we will prioritise proposals that are consistent with our manifesto commitments… 

    … and which contribute to British growth and British prosperity… 

    … because that is what the national interest demands.  

    Our approach to trade also means building stronger relationships with fast-growing economies all around the world. 

    That is why I led a delegation to China for the first Economic and Financial Dialogue since 2019… 

    … alongside world-leading financial service businesses, including HSBC, Standard Chartered and Schroders…  

    … unlocking £600 million of tangible benefits for the UK economy. 

    And I am pleased to confirm that the Business and Trade Secretary will shortly visit India … 

    … to restart talks on the free trade agreement and bilateral investment treaty [redacted political content].  

    Our businesses can only realise these opportunities if they can recruit the skilled staff that they need. 

    So we are reforming our employment system to create a national jobs and careers service. 

    We have created Skills England to meet the skills of the next decade in sectors like construction and engineering.  

    And we will deliver fundamental reform of our welfare system.  

    That includes looking at areas that have been ducked for too long… 

    … like the rising cost of health and disability benefits… 

    … and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will set out our plans to address this ahead of the Spring Statement.  

    Next, the Immigration White Paper, that will bring forward concrete proposals to bring the overall levels of net migration down. 

    But we know that the UK is in an international competition for talent in vital growth sectors.    

    That is why last week, I set out plans for attracting global talent. 

    We will look at the visa routes for very highly skilled people…  

    … so the best people in the world choose the UK to live, work and create wealth… 

    … bringing jobs and investment to Britain. 

    To help businesses access the finance and support they need to grow…  

    … we have delivered significant reforms to provide greater flexibility for firms and founders to raise finance on UK capital markets, by rewriting the UK’s listing rules.  

    In my Mansion House speech, I announced a series of reforms to our pensions system…  

    … including the creation of larger, consolidated funds… 

    … which have much greater capacity to invest in high growth British companies at the scale that we need them to.  

    The consultation on these reforms is already complete and the final report will be published in the Spring. 

    Yesterday we confirmed that we have plans to go further, whilst always protecting the important role that pension funds play in the gilt market. 

    We will introduce new flexibilities for well-funded Defined Benefit schemes… 

    … to release surplus funds where it is safe to do so… 

    … generating even more investment into some of our fastest growing industries. 

    I know too that businesses are held back by a complex and unpredictable regulatory system… 

    … and that is a drag on investment and innovation. 

    We have already provided new growth-focused remits to our financial services regulators… 

    … we have announced a new interim Chair of the Competition and Markets Authority…  

    … and we have established the Regulatory Innovation Office, with an initial focus on synthetic biology, space, AI, and connected and autonomous vehicles.  

    But we need to go further and we need to go faster.  

    So earlier this month, I met the Heads of some of our largest regulators. 

    They have already provided a range of options to drive growth in their sectors… 

    … and proposals for how they can be more agile and responsive to businesses… 

    … and we will publish that final action plan in March to make regulation work much better for our economy. 

    To get Britain building again… 

    … we have delivered the most significant reforms to our planning system in a generation.  

    I have been genuinely shocked about how slow our planning system is. 

    By how long it takes to get things done.  

    Take the decision to build a solar farm in Cambridgeshire – a decision the Energy Secretary took only a few weeks into the job in July… 

    [redacted political content]

    The Deputy Prime Minister has already driven significant progress across government in addressing these issues.   

    My colleagues have determined 13 major planning decisions in just six months… 

    … including for airports, data centres and major housing developments.   

    We have significantly raised housing targets across our country and made them mandatory, so that we can build one-and-a-half million homes in this parliament.  

    We have reformed decades-old “green belt” policies, making it easier to build on the “grey belt” land around our major cities. 

    And we have opened up our planning system to build new infrastructure – like onshore wind farms or data centres driving the AI revolution. 

    Having listened closely to calls from business groups like the Institute of Directors… 

    … and businesses across our economy about the need to speed up infrastructure delivery… 

    … including Mace, Skanska and Arup who are here today… 

    … and members of our British Infrastructure Taskforce like Lloyds, Blackrock and Phoenix… 

    … we have now set out plans to go even further. 

    Last week we confirmed our priorities for the Planning and Infrastructure Bill … 

    … to rapidly streamline the process for determining applications… 

    … to make the consultation process far less burdensome… 

    … and to fundamentally reform our approach to environmental regulation. 

    The problems in our economy… 

    … the lack of bold reform that we have seen over decades… 

    … can be summed up by a £100 million bat tunnel built for HS2… 

    … the type of decision that has made delivering major infrastructure in our country far too expensive and far too slow. 

    So we are reducing the environmental requirements placed on developers when they pay into the nature restoration fund that we have created… 

    …so they can focus on getting things built, and stop worrying about bats and newts.  

    And to build our new infrastructure like nuclear power plants, trainlines and windfarms more quickly… 

    … we are changing the rules to stop blockers getting in the way of development… 

    … through excessive use of Judicial Review. 

    This Bill, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, is a priority for this government. 

    It will be introduced in the Spring… 

    … and we will work tirelessly in parliament to ensure its smooth, and speedy and rapid delivery.  

    By providing a foundation of economic stability… 

    … and by delivering the reforms needed to make it easier for businesses to succeed and grow… 

    … we will create the right conditions to increase investment in our economy – the final key element of our strategy. 

    Investment and innovation go hand in hand.  

    I want to see the sounds and the sights of the future arriving.    

    Delivered by amazing businesses like Wayve and Oxford Nanopore. 

    They are the future. 

    And Britain should be the best place in the world to be an entrepreneur. 

    That is why we protected funding for research and development… 

    … and it is why one of the first decisions I made as Chancellor… 

    … was to extend the Enterprise Investment Scheme and the Venture Capital Trust schemes for a further 10 years… 

    … to get more investment into new companies, driving their innovation and growth.  

    I am determined to make Britain the best place in the world to invest.  

    That was my message in Davos last week.  

    That ambition demands action. 

    The International Investment Summit that we hosted in October delivered £63 billion of investment right across our country… 

    … from Iberdrola doubling its investment in clean energy in places like Suffolk… 

    … Blackstone investing £10 billion in a data centre in Northumberland… 

    … and Eren Holdings investing £1 billion in advanced manufacturing in North Wales.  

    While the lifeblood of growth is business investment, a strategic state has a crucial role to play. 

    That is why we established the National Wealth Fund… 

    … to create that partnership between business, private investors and government to invest in the industries of the future…  

    … like clean energy. 

    Today I can announce two further investments by the National Wealth Fund. 

    First, a £65 million investment for Connected Kerb, to expand their electric vehicle charging network across the UK. 

    And second, a £28 million equity investment in Cornish Metals… 

    … providing the raw materials to be used in solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles… 

    … supporting growth and jobs in the South-West of England.  

    There is no trade-off between economic growth and net zero. 

    Quite the opposite. 

    Net zero is the industrial opportunity of the 21st century, and Britain must lead the way. 

    That is why we will publish a refreshed Carbon Budget Delivery Plan later this year, which alongside the Spending Review, will set out our plans to deliver Carbon Budget 6. 

    Today, I can also announce that we are removing barriers to deliver 16 gigawatts of offshore wind…   

    … by designating new Marine Protected Areas to enable the development of this technology in areas like East Anglia and Yorkshire… 

    … crowding in up to £30 billion of investment in homegrown clean power. 

    And there’s more. 

    Our industrial and manufacturing base, brilliantly represented by Make UK, have been banging their heads against the wall for years at the lack of a proper industrial strategy from government. 

    That is why we have launched our modern industrial strategy… 

    … to drive investment into the industries that will define our success in the years ahead. 

    We have already provided funding to unlock investment in sectors like aerospace, automotives and life sciences… 

    … and we have set out reforms to boost financial services, the AI sector and creative industries. 

    We are not wasting any time, and we will move forward with the next stages of the Industrial Strategy ahead of its publication in the Spring.  

    We will work with the private sector to deliver the infrastructure that our country desperately needs.  

    This includes the Lower Thames Crossing, which will improve connectivity at Port of Tilbury and Dover, London Gateway and Medway… 

    … alleviating severe congestion… 

    … as goods destined for export come from the North, and the Midlands and across the country to markets overseas.   

    To drive growth and deliver value for money for taxpayers, we are exploring options to privately finance this important project.  

    And we have changed course on public investment, too… 

    … with a new Investment Rule to ensure that we don’t just count the costs of investment – we count the benefits too.    

    We are now investing 2.6% of GDP on average over the next five years, compared to 1.9% planned by the previous government..  

    … delivering an additional £100 billion of growth-enhancing capital spending… 

    … which catalyses private sector investment… 

    … in more housing… 

    … better transport links… 

    … and clean energy.  

    These are significant steps in just six months… 

    … and we are seeing some encouraging signs in the British economy. 

    The IMF have upgraded our growth prospects for 2025… 

    … the only G7 country outside the US to see this happen.  

    This gives us the fastest growth of any major European economy this year.  

    And a global survey of CEOs by PWC, has shown Britain is now the second most attractive country in the world for businesses looking to invest.  

    The first time the UK has been in that position for 28 years.  

    This is all welcome news.  

    But there is still more that we can and will do.  

    I am not satisfied with the position we are in. 

    While we have huge amounts of potential, the structural problems in our economy run deep. 

    And the low growth of the last 14 years cannot just be turned around overnight. 

    This has to be our focus for the duration of the parliament.  

    Because the situation demands us to do more. 

    And today I will go further and faster in kickstarting economic growth. 

    Our mission to grow our economy is about raising living standards in every single part of the United Kingdom.  

    Manchester is home to the UK’s fastest growing tech sector.  

    Leeds is one of the largest financial services centres outside of London.  

    These great northern cities have so much potential and promise… 

    …which our brilliant metro mayors, Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin, are working hard to realise…  

    … just like our other metro mayors are doing to deliver new opportunities in their areas.  

    And there is so much more that government can do to support our city regions.    

    To achieve this requires greater focus on two key areas: infrastructure and investment.  

    If we can improve connectivity between towns and cities across the North of England, we can unlock their true growth potential… 

    … by making it easier for people to live, travel and work across the area.  

    At the Budget, I set out funding for the Transpennine Route Upgrade… 

    … a multi-billion-pound programme of improvements that will connect towns and cities from Manchester to York via Stalybridge, Leeds and Huddersfield. 

    We are delivering railway schemes to improve journeys for people across the North… 

    … including upgrades at Bradford Forster Square and by electrifying the Wigan-Bolton line. 

    We have committed to supporting the delivery of a new mass transit system in West Yorkshire.  

    And in Spring, we will publish the Spending Review and a 10-Year Infrastructure Strategy… 

    … which will set out further detail of our plans for infrastructure right across the UK. 

    New transport infrastructure can also act as a catalyst for new housing. 

    We have already seen the benefits that unlocking untapped land around stations can deliver in places like Stockport… 

    … where joint work spearheaded by Andy Burnham and council leaders has delivered new housing and wider commercial opportunities. 

    We will introduce a new approach to planning decisions on land around stations, changing the default answer to yes. 

    We are working with the devolved governments to ensure the benefits of growth can be felt across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland… 

    … including by partnering with them on the Industrial Strategy to support their considerable sectoral strengths. 

    And in December, I met with Metro Mayors from across England.  

    They told me that more opportunities for investment are vital if their local economies are to grow in the years ahead. 

    We are listening closely to them. 

    As the Metro Mayor of Liverpool, Steve Rotherham, has called for… 

    … we will review the Green Book and how it is being used to provide objective, transparent advice on public investment across the country, including outside London and the Southeast.  

    This means that investment in all regions is given a fair hearing by the Treasury that I lead. 

    The Office for Investment is going to be working hand in hand with local areas… 

    … to develop a commercially attractive pipeline of investment opportunities for a global audience… 

    … starting with the Liverpool City Region and the North East Combined Authority, led by Kim McGuinness. 

    The National Wealth Fund is establishing strategic partnerships to provide deeper, more focused support for city regions, starting in Glasgow, West Yorkshire, the West Midlands, and Greater Manchester. 

    We are supporting key investment opportunities across the UK. 

    The government is backing Andy Burnham’s plans for the redevelopment of Old Trafford, which promises to create new housing and commercial development around a new stadium… 

    … to drive regeneration and growth in the area. 

    We are moving forward with the Wrexham and Flintshire Investment Zone… 

    … focusing on the area’s strengths in advanced manufacturing… 

    … backed by major businesses like Airbus and JCB… 

    … to leverage £1 billion of private investment in the next ten years… 

    … creating up to 6,000 jobs. 

    [redacted political content]

    So I can announce today that we will work with Doncaster Council and the Mayor of South Yorkshire, Oliver Coppard… 

    … to support their efforts to recreate South Yorkshire Airport City as a thriving regional airport.  

    And finally, I am pleased to announce a partnership between Prologis and Manchester Airport Group in the East Midlands, where the Metro Mayor Claire Ward is doing an excellent job growing the local economy there. 

    Prologis and MAG will work together to build a new advanced manufacturing and logistics park at East Midlands Airport … 

    … unlocking up to £1 billion of investment and 2,000 jobs at the site… 

    … a major investment from a global business into our country… 

    … representing a huge vote of confidence in the East Midlands and in the UK. 

    This is just the start of our work to get more investment into every nation and region of Britain. 

    Next, I want to set out further detail for plans for the area we are in today.  

    Oxford and Cambridge offer huge potential for our nation’s growth prospects. 

    Only 66 miles apart… 

    … these cities are home to two of the best universities in the world… 

    … and the area is a hub for globally renowned science and technology firms. 

    This area has the potential to be Europe’s Silicon Valley.  

    To make that a reality, we need a systematic approach to attract businesses to come here and to grow here. 

    At the moment, it takes over two and a half hours to travel between Oxford and Cambridge by train.  

    There is no way to commute directly by rail from places like Bedford and Milton Keynes to Cambridge. 

    And there is a lack of affordable housing right across the region.  

    In other words, the demand is there… 

    … but there are far too many supply side constraints on economic growth here.  

    We are going to fix that.  

    The Ox Cam arc was initially launched in 2003 – over 20 years ago.  

    [redacted political content]

    We are not prepared to miss out on the opportunities here any longer.  

    So working with the Deputy Prime Minister… 

    … who is already driving forward vital work in the region…  

    … we are going further and faster to unlock the potential of the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor.   

    First, we are funding the transport links needed to make the Oxford Cambridge growth corridor a success… 

    … including East-West Rail, with new services between Oxford and Milton Keynes starting this year… 

    … and road upgrades to reduce journey times between Milton Keynes and Cambridge. 

    East West Rail will also support vibrant new and expanded communities along the route. 

    We have already received proposals for New Towns along the new railway… 

    … with 18 submissions for sizeable new developments. 

    At Tempsford – the nexus of the East Coast Mainline, the A1 and East West Rail… 

    …we will move quicker to deliver a mainline station, meaning journey times to London of under an hour…  

    … and to Cambridge in under 30 minutes when East West Rail is operational. 

     Second, we are ensuring that the area has the right infrastructure and public services in place to support the growth corridor as it expands. 

    A new Cambridge Cancer Research Hospital is being prioritised for investment as part of wave 1 of the New Hospital Programme.  

    Water infrastructure has also been a major hindrance to development. 

    So we have now agreed water resources management plans, unlocking £7.9 billion of investment in the next 5 years…  

    …including plans for the new Fens Reservoir serving Cambridge and the South East Strategic Reservoir near Oxford.  

    And I can confirm today that the Environment Agency have now lifted their objections to new development in Cambridge, following this government’s intervention to address water scarcity… 

    … which means 4,500 additional homes, new schools, and new office, retail and laboratory space can be built.  

    Third, I am delighted that Cambridge University have come forward with plans for a new flagship innovation hub at the centre of Cambridge… 

    … to attract global investment and foster a community that catalyses innovation, as other cities around the world like Boston and Paris have done.  

    Just yesterday, Moderna completed the build for their new vaccine production and R&D site in Harwell, right here in Oxfordshire, alongside a commitment to invest a further £1 billion in the UK.  

    And we are creating a new AI Growth Zone in Culham to speed up planning approvals for the rapid build-out of data centres.  

    And finally, to take this project forward at real pace… 

    … and catalyse private sector investment into the region… 

    … I am pleased to announce that the Deputy Prime Minister and I have asked Lord Patrick Vallance to be the champion for the Oxford Cambridge Growth Corridor.  

    Lord Vallance has extensive experience across the sciences, academia, and government. 

    He will work with local leaders and with the Housing and Planning Minister to deliver this exciting project… 

    … including with Peter Freeman, who is already doing excellent work in Cambridge… 

    … and a new Growth Commission for Oxford, which will help to accelerate growth in the city and its surrounding area.   

    This is the government’s modern Industrial Strategy in action. 

    With central government, local leaders and business working together… 

    … the Oxford and Cambridge Growth Corridor could add up to £78 billion to the UK economy by 2035 … 

    … driving investment, innovation and growth. 

    Finally, I come to the decision that perhaps more than any other… 

    … has been delayed… 

    … has been avoided… 

    … has been ducked. 

    The question of whether to give Heathrow … 

    … our only hub airport… 

    … a third runway… 

    … has run on for decades. 

    The last full length runway in Britain was built in the 1940s. 

    No progress in eighty years.  

    Why is this so damaging?  

    It’s because Heathrow is at the heart of the UK’s openness as a country.   

    It connects us to emerging markets all over the world, opening up new opportunities for growth. 

    Around three-quarters of all long-haul flights in the UK go from Heathrow. 

    Over 60% of UK air freight comes through Heathrow. 

    And about 15 million business travellers used Heathrow in 2023. 

    But for decades, its growth has been constrained.  

    Successive studies have shown that this really matters for our economy. 

    According to the most recent study from Frontier Economics, a third runway could increase potential GDP by 0.43% by 2050. 

    Over half – 60% of that boost, would go to areas outside London and the South-East. 

    … increasing trade opportunities for products like Scotch whiskey and Scottish salmon – already two of the biggest British exports out of Heathrow.  

    And a third runway could create over 100,000 jobs. 

    For international investors, persistent delays have cast doubt about our seriousness towards improving our economic prospects. 

    Business groups, like the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Chambers of Commerce right across the UK… 

    …as well trade unions like GMB and Unite are clear… 

    … a third runway is badly needed. 

    In 2018, the previous government steered its Airports National Policy Statement through parliament.  

    But no action was taken. 

    It simply sat on the shelf. 

    We are taking a totally different approach to airport expansion.  

    This Government has already given its support to expansion at City Airport and at Stansted.  

    And there are two live decisions on Luton and Gatwick which will be made by the Transport Secretary shortly.  

    But as our only hub airport, Heathrow is in a unique position – and we cannot duck the decision any longer.   

    I have always been clear that a third runway at Heathrow would unlock further growth… 

    … boost investment… 

    … increase exports… 

    … and make the UK more open and more connected.   

    And now, the case is stronger than ever… 

    … because our reforms to the economy… 

    … like speeding up the planning system… 

    … and our plans for modernised UK airspace…  

    … mean the delivery of this project is set up for success.  

    So I can confirm today that this Government supports a third runway at Heathrow… 

    … and is inviting proposals to be brought forward by the summer.  

    We will then take forward a full assessment through the Airport National Policy Statement. 

    That will ensure that the project is value for money – and our clear expectation is that any associated surface transport costs will be financed through private funding. 

    And it will ensure that a third runway is delivered in line with our legal, environmental and climate obligations.  

    Heathrow themselves are clear that their proposal for expansion will meet strict rules on noise, air quality and carbon emissions. 

    And we are already making great strides in transitioning to cleaner and greener aviation.  

    Sustainable Aviation Fuel reduces CO2 emissions compared to fossil fuel by around 70%. 

    At the start of this month, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel mandate became law.  

    And today I can announce that we are investing £63 million into the Advanced Fuels Fund over the next year… 

    … and we have today set out the details of how we will deliver a Revenue Certainty Mechanism to encourage investment into this growing industry. 

    These measures will encourage more investors to back production in the UK, bringing good, high-skilled jobs to areas like Teesside… 

    … demonstrating that investment in the right technology can help us deliver both our growth and our clean energy missions. 

    Now is the moment to grasp the opportunity in front of us. 

    By backing a third runway at Heathrow, we can make Britain the world’s best connected place to do business. 

    That is what it takes to make bold decisions in the national interest. 

    That is what I mean by going further and faster to kickstart economic growth. 

    The work of change has begun.  

    We have already made great progress.  

    But I am not satisfied.  

    And I know that there is more to be done.  

    We must go further and faster if we are to build a brighter future.  

    The prize on offer is immense.  

    The next generation with more opportunities than the last. 

    An engineer in Teesside, working in some of the most exciting industries of the future – from carbon capture to sustainable aviation fuel. 

    A scientist in Milton Keynes or Bedford, working in our life sciences industry to solve some of the most important medical challenges in the world.  

    A small business owner in Scotland, knowing that they can expand and export to new markets right across the globe.   

    Wealth created, and wealth shared, in every part of Britain.    

    This is a Government on the side of working people. 

    Taking the right decisions to secure their future, to secure our future. 

    Stepping up to the challenges we face. 

    Ending the era of low expectations. 

    Putting Britain on a different path. 

    Delivering for the British people. 

    And I am determined, this Government is determined, to do just that.  

    Thank you.

    Updates to this page

    Published 29 January 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Brexit cost: higher energy bills and lower investment

    Source: Scottish Government

    Scottish Government calls for closer energy links with Europe.

    The Scottish Government is calling for closer co-operation with Europe to help lower energy bills and boost investment.

    Ahead of upcoming UK Government talks with the EU the Scottish Government has published a report, identifying  a number of opportunities to more closely align with the European Union on energy matters.

    These include:

    • accelerating the adoption of more efficient UK-EU electricity trading arrangements to bring down energy costs for consumers
    • linking the UK and EU Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS) to help reduce costs and barriers to trade

    Estimates from the UK energy industry predict that unless the UK moves toward closer cooperation with the EU on energy and climate, it may lead to additional costs of up to £10billion in 2024-25, through higher energy bills and lower Treasury revenues.

    The Scottish Government’s wants Scotland to be an EU member state, however the report published today sets out immediate actions which would rebuild closer collaboration with the EU on energy and climate matters and offset some of the damage caused by Brexit.

    Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy Gillian Martin said: “As we approach the fifth anniversary of Brexit, the costs to the people of Scotland are becoming ever clearer.

    “The best future for Scotland is to be a member state of the EU. But we will always be a voice for closer co-operation with our fellow Europeans – in particular around issues which impact us all such as lowering energy bills and driving up investment in renewables.

    “This paper highlights the key areas where working together is vital for achieving our shared ambitions – driving economic growth, reducing costs, strengthening energy security and substantially contributing to our shared climate goals.

    “We have a pivotal role to play and stand ready to work collaboratively with the UK Government and wider partners to re-build a closer relationship with Europe in this space.”

    Background

    Read the Closer energy and climate cooperation with the EU report

    Energy UK Explains: the cost of the UK-EU relationship for energy – Energy UK

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –