News

Starmer admits Brexit was a mistake – so who is to blame, and what has Britain lost?

Published

9 months ago

October 5, 2025

AFTER nearly a decade of division, economic drift and diplomatic damage, Britain’s Prime Minister has finally said what most of the country now believes – that Brexit was a mistake.

It doesn’t matter which side of politics you’re on – everyone agrees that the whole thing has been a disaster. The only point still in dispute is whose fault it is.

At the Labour Party conference in Liverpool, Sir Keir Starmer accused “self-appointed representatives of the people” of having “sold the lie of Brexit and walked away.” His words marked the first time a serving Prime Minister has openly acknowledged that leaving the European Union was not the patriotic liberation it was promised to be, but a national misstep.

The comment sent shockwaves through Westminster, reigniting one of the most bitter debates in modern British politics. Yet for millions of voters, the sense of regret has been building for years.

A gamble for party unity

***Called EU referendum in 206: David Cameron***

The story begins with David Cameron, who called the 2016 referendum not because the country demanded it, but because his own party did. Under pressure from Eurosceptic MPs and Nigel Farage’s insurgent UKIP, Cameron gambled Britain’s future on what he thought would be an easy victory.

When the country voted narrowly to leave, he resigned the next morning, leaving no plan, no leadership and no roadmap for what came next. It was, in hindsight, the original sin of the Brexit era – a national plebiscite called for internal party management, with consequences that would last for generations.

Sold a dream that could never be delivered

Millions of people voted Leave in good faith, driven by real hopes of control, fairness and national pride. Those hopes were genuine – even if the promises were not.

The Vote Leave campaign, fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, sold a dream that could never be delivered. Britain, they claimed, would “take back control,” save £350 million a week for the NHS, and strike better trade deals across the globe. None of it proved true.

Instead, Johnson’s government pursued the hardest possible form of Brexit, severing ties with the single market and customs union. The slogan “Get Brexit Done” became a substitute for economic strategy. What followed was customs red tape, labour shortages and collapsing export volumes – not liberation but isolation.

Nigel Farage, the self-styled champion of the people, helped make Brexit inevitable but bore none of the responsibility for its execution. Having declared victory, he promptly walked away, leaving others to manage the fallout he had helped create.

The missing opposition

***Jeremy Corbyn, former leader of the Labour Party***

Labour’s leadership at the time also bears blame. Jeremy Corbyn’s half-hearted Remain campaign failed to offer voters a clear alternative vision of Britain inside Europe. His refusal to take a strong stand on a second referendum allowed Leave rhetoric to dominate in former Labour heartlands, paving the way for Johnson’s landslide in 2019.

Years of damage

Nine years later, the impact is undeniable.

Economically, UK trade with the EU is down around 15 per cent compared with pre-Brexit trends. The OBR estimates the economy is 4 per cent smaller than it would have been inside the single market.
Politically, Britain’s standing in Europe has diminished. Diplomats describe a country once seen as a bridge between the US and Europe now reduced to a spectator.
Socially, Brexit has deepened divides between generations, regions and nations – fuelling support for independence movements in Scotland and rekindling border tensions in Northern Ireland.
Culturally, the end of free movement has shrunk opportunities for young people, artists and small businesses that once thrived on easy access to Europe.

What was promised as the restoration of sovereignty has often felt like the surrender of influence.

A reckoning at last

Starmer’s admission does not mean a push to rejoin the EU – at least not yet. The Prime Minister insists that his goal is to “make Brexit work,” not to reopen old wounds. But in acknowledging that Britain was misled, he has broken a political taboo that long constrained debate.

In doing so, he reflects public opinion. Polls show around 60 per cent of Britons now believe leaving the EU was a mistake. Only a third still defend it. The great national silence around Brexit is finally cracking.

Who bears the blame?

If Brexit – or at least the version of it we have lived through – was a national act of self-harm, it was one committed with many hands on the knife. Responsibility is spread across parties, personalities and decades of political cowardice.

David Cameron lit the fuse. Terrified of losing his grip on a divided Conservative Party, he promised a referendum he thought he couldn’t lose. When he did, he walked away the next morning — no plan, no roadmap, no leadership.

Boris Johnson turned that gamble into a crusade. He gave Brexit its swagger and its slogans — “Take Back Control,” “Get Brexit Done” — but not the substance to make them real. When the slogans ran out, the hard border, the trade friction and the labour shortages remained.

Nigel Farage weaponised frustration. For years he railed against Brussels, the establishment and immigration — giving voice to grievances that were real, but offering no workable plan to fix them. When the chaos began, he claimed victory and left the stage.

Jeremy Corbyn, leading Labour at the time, could have offered clarity. Instead, his half-hearted Remain campaign and later fence-sitting over a second referendum left voters uncertain what Labour stood for. The result was a landslide for Johnson and a mandate for the hardest form of Brexit imaginable.

Behind them all stood sections of the British press, which for years turned the EU into a cartoon villain — a convenient scapegoat for problems made in Westminster. The drip of distortion became the tide that carried the country out.

***Claims in The Sun that the Queen backed Brexit were later criticised by the regulator as being false***

And finally, there is the electorate itself — millions who voted in good faith, believing they were taking back control. They were promised sovereignty and prosperity; they got neither. They were sold hope — and left with red tape.

Figure	Role in the debacle	Legacy
David Cameron	Called the referendum for party reasons, then walked away	Lit the fuse
Boris Johnson	Fronted a campaign of slogans and deceit	Delivered a hard Brexit that damaged trade
Nigel Farage	Whipped up anti-EU populism	Created pressure but offered no plan
Jeremy Corbyn	Failed to lead a clear Remain alternative	Left voters confused and divided
The tabloid press	Fuelled myths about Brussels and immigration	Normalised misinformation
The electorate	Voted for a dream that never existed	Still living with the consequences

What the future holds

Britain’s road back to stability will not run through Brussels alone. For now, rejoining the EU remains politically out of reach – both because of public fatigue and the sheer complexity of reversing the 2020 withdrawal agreement. But a quiet realignment is already under way.

Starmer’s government has reopened channels with European partners on security, youth mobility, science and energy cooperation, signalling a more pragmatic tone after years of confrontation. Ministers talk of “building trust first” – widely understood in Brussels as laying the groundwork for closer ties when the political climate allows.

Yet that climate has shifted again. Farage is back from the political wilderness – and look where he is now. After reclaiming the leadership of Reform UK in mid-2024 and spending more than a year rebuilding its base, he has now driven the party past the Conservatives in the polls and forced Starmer onto the defensive.

***Reform’s Nigel Farage: Promises to “finish Brexit”***

Farage’s promise to “finish the job” of leaving the EU entirely has revived the rhetoric many thought buried. His power lies not in policy but in disruption – in turning anger into momentum and disillusionment into votes.

For all their differences, there is one point on which Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage now agree – that Brexit was not done well. The Remainer who wanted to stay and the campaigner who made leaving his life’s mission have arrived, from opposite ends of the spectrum, at the same conclusion: Britain got Brexit wrong.

The only question now is who the country will trust to put it right – the man who says he can fix it, or the one who still vows to finish it.

News

Brexit at 10: How Britain was sold a dream that cost us dearly

Published

1 hour ago

June 17, 2026

Tom Sinclair

A decade after the referendum, the promised benefits remain hard to find while the economic costs are increasingly difficult to ignore.

ON JUNE 23, 2016, Britain made one of the most significant political decisions in its modern history.

Against the expectations of much of the political establishment, financial markets and many opinion polls, 52 per cent of voters chose to leave the European Union.

The result sent shockwaves through Westminster, Brussels and beyond.

In Wales, the outcome was particularly striking. Most Welsh local authority areas backed Leave. Pembrokeshire voted by almost 56 per cent to leave the EU. Carmarthenshire also backed Brexit, while neighbouring Ceredigion was one of only a handful of Welsh areas to support Remain.

The referendum exposed deep divisions within the United Kingdom. Cities voted differently from rural areas. Older voters voted differently from younger voters. University graduates voted differently from those without degrees.

But Brexit was never simply about economics.

For many voters it was about sovereignty, immigration, democracy and identity. It was about who governed Britain and where decisions affecting everyday life should be made.

Ten years later, the emotions surrounding the referendum remain powerful. Yet enough time has passed for a more sober assessment.

Has Brexit delivered what it promised?

The answer depends on which promises voters believed. However, on the central economic question, the evidence has become increasingly clear.

Britain did not collapse after Brexit.

But it is almost certainly poorer than it would otherwise have been.

The recession that never happened

One reason the Brexit debate remains so bitter is that both sides can point to predictions that proved wrong.

Before the referendum, the Treasury warned that a Leave vote could trigger an immediate recession. Some economists predicted soaring unemployment and a severe economic shock.

Brexit supporters quickly seized upon the fact that these predictions failed to materialise.

Britain did not plunge into recession.
Unemployment remained relatively low.
The economy carried on functioning.
Supermarkets remained stocked.
The financial system did not implode.

In hindsight, many of the short-term warnings were overstated.

However, that does not mean Brexit came without economic costs.

The more serious long-term forecasts did not predict an immediate collapse. Instead, they suggested Britain’s economy would gradually become smaller than it would otherwise have been had the country remained in the European Union.

Ten years on, that is broadly what appears to have happened.

The slow puncture

Perhaps the most accurate description of Brexit came not from a politician but from economist John Springford of the Centre for European Reform.

“Brexit is more a story of stagnation and a slow puncture than recession and unemployment.”

Britain did not fall off a cliff.

Instead, growth slowed.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, Brexit is expected to reduce Britain’s long-term economic output by around four per cent compared with remaining in the European Union.

Recent academic studies suggest the impact may be even greater.

Economists comparing Britain’s performance against other advanced economies estimate that output per person may now be between six and eight per cent lower than it would otherwise have been.

No economist can create an alternative universe in which Britain voted Remain. Nobody knows exactly what would have happened.

What researchers can do is compare Britain’s performance with similar developed economies.

Before 2016, Britain generally tracked the economic performance of comparable nations.

Since then, a gap has emerged.

While factors such as Covid-19, the war in Ukraine, energy shocks and global instability have affected all countries, Britain’s growth performance has been consistently weaker than many comparable economies.

The pound never recovered

The first visible sign of Brexit’s impact came within hours of the referendum result.

As Leave victories began to emerge during the night, sterling suffered one of the biggest falls in its modern history.

The pound lost roughly ten per cent of its value against major currencies.

That mattered because Britain imports a huge proportion of the goods it consumes.

A weaker pound made imports more expensive.

The result was higher inflation, increased costs for businesses and greater pressure on household finances.

For ordinary families, it meant more expensive food, higher prices in shops and increased costs for foreign holidays.

Ten years later, sterling remains below its pre-referendum level against both the US dollar and the euro.

Supporters argued that a weaker pound would boost exports by making British goods cheaper overseas.

While some exporters benefited, many found any gains offset by the new barriers created by Brexit itself.

Trade and red tape

One of the strongest economic arguments against Brexit was always remarkably simple.

Britain was choosing to place barriers between itself and its largest trading partner.

The European Union remains Britain’s biggest export market.

More than 40 per cent of British exports still go to EU countries, while almost half of imports come from the bloc.

Brexit did not create tariffs on most goods, but it did create friction.

Customs declarations, veterinary certificates, rules-of-origin requirements, border checks and additional paperwork became part of everyday life for thousands of businesses.

For large multinational corporations, these costs were often manageable.

For smaller firms, they could be significant.

Many businesses that previously exported to Europe simply decided it was no longer worth the effort.

Food producers, manufacturers and specialist exporters were among those most affected.

The issue was not whether trade could continue. It could and did. The issue was whether trade became harder. The evidence shows it did.

Fishing and farming

Few industries featured more prominently during the Brexit campaign than fishing and farming.

Both sectors remain central to the economy and identity of many Welsh communities.

The promise of taking back control of British waters resonated strongly with parts of the fishing industry.

Similarly, many farmers believed that leaving the European Union would create opportunities for a more tailored system of agricultural support.

The reality has been mixed.

Fishermen gained greater control over some aspects of fishing policy, but many also discovered that access to European markets was just as important as access to fish stocks.

Fresh seafood is highly perishable.

Any delays at borders can have serious commercial consequences.

Farmers faced their own challenges.

The replacement of European subsidy schemes created uncertainty, while exporters faced additional bureaucracy when selling into European markets.

Many rural businesses have adapted successfully.

Others remain unconvinced that Brexit has delivered the benefits they were promised.

The investment strike

One of the least visible consequences of Brexit may also be one of the most significant.

Investment drives economic growth.

When businesses feel confident about the future, they build factories, purchase machinery, develop products and create jobs.

Following the referendum, uncertainty became a defining feature of British politics.

Negotiations dragged on for years.

Successive governments struggled to agree a strategy.

Businesses often had little idea what future trading arrangements would look like.

Many responded by delaying investment decisions.

Economists estimate that business investment remains significantly below where it might otherwise have been.

That matters because investment today creates productivity tomorrow.

Lower productivity means lower wages.

Lower wages mean lower living standards.

This process is gradual and often invisible, but its effects are felt across the economy.

The NHS promise

No Brexit retrospective would be complete without addressing perhaps the most famous claim of the entire campaign.

The Vote Leave bus carried the slogan that Britain sent £350 million a week to Brussels and that the money could instead be spent on the NHS.

The claim became one of the defining images of the referendum.

Supporters argued that leaving the European Union would free up resources for domestic priorities.

Critics argued that the figure was misleading.

Ten years later, the NHS remains under immense pressure.

Waiting lists remain high.

Staff shortages persist.

Hospitals face growing demand.

The health service has received additional funding, but few would argue that Brexit delivered the dramatic transformation implied during the campaign.

If anything, recruitment challenges have become more complicated.

Immigration: the great irony

Perhaps the most politically sensitive aspect of Brexit concerns immigration.

For many Leave voters, immigration was one of the decisive issues.

Yet the years following Brexit saw net migration reach record levels.

The composition of migration changed significantly.

Migration from European Union countries fell sharply.

Migration from the rest of the world increased substantially.

At one stage, net migration approached one million people annually.

It has since fallen significantly, but the overall picture remains striking.

Brexit did not deliver the immediate reduction in immigration that many voters expected.

Instead, Britain replaced one immigration system with another.

Meanwhile, industries ranging from healthcare and social care to hospitality, agriculture and construction continued relying heavily on overseas workers.

The result was a political outcome that few anticipated.

Britain left the European Union partly to reduce immigration, only to experience the highest levels of immigration in its history.

The Welsh experience

The Welsh dimension of Brexit remains particularly fascinating.

Wales was one of the largest beneficiaries of European funding.

For decades, west Wales received substantial support through European structural funds.

Road improvements, regeneration projects, training schemes and business support programmes all benefited from EU investment.

Yet many of the areas that received the most funding voted strongly for Brexit.

Why?

The answer lies partly in the fact that Brexit was never simply an economic calculation.

Many voters felt left behind despite years of investment.

Communities struggling with low wages, limited opportunities and economic insecurity often saw Brexit as an opportunity to send a message to political elites.

It was, in many respects, a protest vote.

The irony is that many of those communities continue to face the same challenges today.

Brexit did not solve Britain’s regional inequalities.

Nor did it reverse decades of economic imbalance between London and other parts of the country.

The lost generation?

One of the least discussed consequences of Brexit concerns young people.

Before Brexit, British citizens enjoyed the right to live, work and study freely across much of Europe.

That freedom was rarely used by most people.

Yet its existence created opportunities.

Young people from Pembrokeshire could study in Spain, work in France, travel across Europe and build careers without visas or significant bureaucratic barriers.

Those opportunities have not disappeared entirely.

However, they have become more complicated.

Many younger voters view this as one of the most tangible losses associated with Brexit.

For older generations, Brexit was often about reclaiming national sovereignty.

For younger generations, it sometimes feels like a reduction in personal freedom.

What did Britain gain?

A balanced assessment must acknowledge that Brexit delivered some of what supporters wanted.

Britain now has greater legal sovereignty.
Parliament ultimately has greater authority over laws applying within the UK.
The government has more freedom to negotiate trade agreements independently.
Britain can diverge from European regulations if it chooses.

Supporters argue these freedoms have value regardless of purely economic calculations.

The question is whether those gains outweigh the costs.

For many voters, the answer remains yes.

For others, the economic evidence increasingly suggests otherwise.

Could Britain win a Brexit referendum today?

Public opinion has shifted dramatically since 2016.

Most major polling now suggests that more people believe Brexit was the wrong decision than believe it was the right one.

Support for closer ties with Europe has increased steadily.

Many voters who supported Leave continue to do so.

However, there is also widespread frustration that the benefits promised during the referendum campaign have failed to materialise.

That does not mean Britain is about to rejoin the European Union.

There is little political appetite for reopening that debate.

Instead, attention has increasingly turned towards improving relations with Europe while remaining outside the bloc.

Were we sold a dream?

Ten years on, perhaps the most honest answer is yes.

Not because Leave voters were foolish.

Not because concerns about sovereignty, immigration or democratic accountability were illegitimate.

But because Brexit was sold as a solution to problems it was never capable of fully solving.

Communities that felt ignored in 2016 often still feel ignored today.

Public services remain under pressure.

Economic growth remains weak.

Living standards remain squeezed.

Migration remains politically contentious.

The promised transformation never arrived.

Britain did not collapse after Brexit.

The economy did not fall off a cliff.

Many of the most dramatic warnings made by Remain campaigners proved wrong.

Yet the central promise of Brexit was never that Britain would merely survive.

It was that Britain would thrive.

Ten years later, that is the standard by which Brexit should be judged.

On the evidence available today, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Britain would be wealthier, more productive and more economically dynamic had it remained inside the European Union.

The referendum settled one argument in 2016.

A decade later, another question remains.

If Brexit was supposed to make Britain stronger, richer and more confident, can anyone honestly say it succeeded?

News

National champions set for Lloyds Road Championships in Wales

Published

2 hours ago

June 17, 2026

Herald Sport

Strong Welsh contingent among elite field heading to Lampeter and Aberystwyth

SOME of Britain’s leading cyclists will head to Wales next week as the 2026 Lloyds National Road Championships get under way.

Sixteen former elite national road champions are among the riders named for the event, which begins in Lampeter on Thursday, June 25, before moving to Aberystwyth for the circuit race and road race.

Welsh rider Zoe Backstedt, of Canyon//SRAM Zondacrypto, is expected to be one of the headline names after winning the elite women’s time-trial title at last year’s championships.

Backstedt said: “I’m super excited to come back to Wales to race national champs this year. I don’t get to race in the UK a lot, let alone in Wales, so that makes it even more exciting to be there.

“We’ve got such a strong roster of riders in the UK, so it’s never going to be easy, but I hope I’ll come into this in good shape and fighting for the win.”

Millie Couzens, of Fenix-Premier Tech, returns to defend her women’s road race title. She faces a strong field including three-time road national champion Pfeiffer Georgi, Morven Yeoman, Imogen Wolff, Cat Ferguson, Anna Henderson and Flora Perkins.

In the men’s road race, Sam Watson, of NetCompany Ineos, will look to retain his crown against a field including former national champion Ben Swift, reigning under-23 champion Matthew Brennan, Adam Howell and Ethan Hayter.

Hayter said: “Nationals always seem to bring out the best in me. I’ve managed to win a jersey in 2024 and 2025, so it would be nice to try to add another in the TT or RR.

“Each year the level gets higher, but it makes for aggressive, exciting racing.”

Cameron Mason will return to Aberystwyth to defend his open circuit race title, with Thomas Armstrong, Matt Bostock and Oliver Wood among those expected to challenge.

Kate Richardson also returns as defending women’s circuit race champion. She will be joined by a strong field including Isabel Sharp, Carys Lloyd, Xan Crees, Jenny Holl and Josie Knight.

A number of Welsh riders will also compete across the championships, including Finlay Tarling, Elynor Backstedt, Anna Morris, Owain Doull MBE and Megan Barker.

Erin Boothman, following a successful track season, will make her Lloyds National Road Championships debut in the women’s road race and under-23 women’s time-trial. Ben Wiggins will also return to Ceredigion as he looks to improve on last year’s silver medal in the under-23 men’s time-trial.

Ten national champions’ jerseys will be contested over three days of racing.

The time-trial takes place in Lampeter on Thursday, June 25. The elite women, under-23 women and under-23 men will race over 25.6km, while the elite men will cover 38.4km.

Aberystwyth will host the circuit race on Friday, June 26, and the road race on Sunday, June 28, giving spectators the chance to watch some of Britain’s best riders on Welsh roads.

The championships return to Wales with support from the Welsh Government.

Pic: Lloyds National Circuit Championship 2025 (Pic: SWPix.com)

News

Claire Archibald raises concerns over delays to carers’ needs assessments

Published

2 hours ago

June 17, 2026

Tom Sinclair

CARERS across Wales are being left overworked and without timely support, a Senedd member has warned.

Claire Archibald MS, Reform Wales’ Shadow Minister for Social Care and member for Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion, raised the issue during questions to the Plaid Cymru Health Minister.

She highlighted concerns that many unpaid carers are still waiting too long for Carer’s Needs Assessments, despite a commitment that assessments should be completed within 28 days.

Ms Archibald said reports such as At Breaking Point showed that many carers were either unaware of their rights or were facing delays before receiving meaningful help.

Questions have now been raised over when the 28-day standard will be fully implemented across Wales and how local authorities will be held to account.

Ms Archibald said: “Carers across Wales are essential to the health care system, yet too many are overworked and not receiving the support they need to continue their vital role.

“Despite Plaid Cymru’s promise to ensure Carer’s Needs Assessments are completed within 28 days, many carers are still unaware of their rights or facing long delays before receiving any meaningful help.

“There must be clarity on when the 28-day standard will be fully implemented across Wales, alongside robust accountability measures to ensure local authorities deliver on this commitment.

“Without proper funding and enforcement, there is a risk that responsibility is simply passed on to already stretched councils, leaving carers without the support they urgently need.”