🅜🅐🅡🅚

Brussels Knows Its Economic Model Is Failing. Why Is Burnham Taking Britain Back Towards It? There is something extraordinary about Andy Burnham's determination to bring Britain closer to the European Union. As Brussels struggles to revive its economic competitiveness, our Prime Minister wants Britain to accept more of its rules. The EU's leading economists warn that Europe's economic model needs fundamental reform. Burnham appears determined to tie us more closely to it. Consider Mario Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank. Commissioned to examine Europe's declining competitiveness, he delivered a devastating assessment in September 2024. Weak productivity, expensive energy, inadequate investment and a widening technological gap with America and China were threatening Europe's prosperity. His proposed remedy required €750 billion to €800 billion in additional investment every year. Two years later, the problems remain. A September 2026 assessment of Draghi's proposals found no broad turnaround in productivity and little evidence of the private investment Europe needs. The European Central Bank forecasts eurozone growth of just 0.9 per cent this year. Germany, once Europe's industrial powerhouse, has struggled with stagnation, high energy costs and declining manufacturing competitiveness. These are hardly the foundations of an economic miracle. Europe remains a major trading power, with considerable wealth, skilled workers and successful industries. Its economy may recover, as the ECB expects. But the structural weaknesses identified by Draghi cannot be dismissed as temporary difficulties. They have been building for years, and Brussels acknowledges them. Yet Burnham presents closer alignment with this system as the route to British prosperity. His proposed agrifood agreement would require Britain to follow relevant EU regulations as they evolve, including rules affecting businesses that never export to Europe. British ministers could be consulted, but Britain would have no vote when those rules were adopted. Consider the contradiction. Brussels is trying to simplify its regulatory framework because European businesses complain about excessive bureaucracy. Meanwhile, Britain is negotiating arrangements that could oblige our businesses to follow future EU rules without a meaningful say in their creation. The Government promises economic benefits from reducing trade barriers. Those benefits deserve consideration. But so do the costs of restricting our ability to regulate independently, encourage innovation and negotiate different trading arrangements with the wider world. Nor should anyone pretend EU membership guarantees economic success. Membership brings access to a vast single market, but also common obligations, financial contributions and constraints on national policy. Whether those benefits outweigh the costs is a serious economic and democratic question. It cannot be settled by declaring that rejoining would unquestionably make Britain richer. The irony is that Britain left the EU partly to regain the freedom to pursue a different economic course. Successive governments have often failed to use that freedom effectively. Poor domestic policy, excessive regulation and high energy costs remain serious British problems. But surrendering policy choices to Brussels would hardly solve them. Britain should cooperate with its European neighbours, remove needless trade barriers and pursue agreements that serve both sides. It should also retain the freedom to respond when European policies prove damaging or better alternatives emerge elsewhere. Draghi warned that Europe faced prolonged decline without fundamental reform. Brussels recognised the danger. So why is Burnham so determined to bind Britain more closely to an economic model the EU itself believes needs fixing?

Britain Owes No Apology for the Sins of Two Centuries Ago There is something profoundly troubling about a British Prime Minister contemplating an apology on behalf of his country for events that took place two centuries ago. Andy Burnham says he is open to formally apologising for Britain's involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. He also acknowledges that today's British people bear no responsibility for those historical wrongs. Then why is he considering apologising in their name? Slavery was a barbaric institution. Britain participated in it, profited from it and eventually helped bring it to an end. Those facts belong together. Yet Labour seems increasingly comfortable discussing Britain's historical shame while showing far less enthusiasm for defending its achievements. A nation cannot understand its history by examining only the chapters that make it uncomfortable. Slavery existed thousands of years before Britain entered the transatlantic trade. African rulers and merchants supplied captives to European traders. Slavery flourished across the Middle East, North Africa and Asia. Some forms of slavery remain with us today. Yet Britain, which became one of the foremost powers in suppressing the international trade, now finds itself under renewed pressure to apologise. In 1807, Parliament abolished the British slave trade. In 1833, it legislated to abolish slavery across most of the Empire, with full emancipation following in 1838. The Royal Navy subsequently spent decades intercepting slave ships, liberating captives and confronting traders along the African coast. British sailors risked their lives enforcing a principle that much of the world had yet to accept. Abolition also came at an enormous financial cost. Parliament authorised £20 million to compensate slave owners, a vast sum at the time. The formerly enslaved received nothing, an injustice that deserves acknowledgement. Debt associated with that settlement was subsequently consolidated into government borrowing arrangements, with the relevant gilt finally redeemed in 2015. Britain's abolitionist history deserves to be remembered alongside its involvement in slavery. But Burnham's proposed apology raises another question. What exactly would it achieve? Caribbean campaigners have already declared that an apology alone would be insufficient. Their demands extend to debt relief, development funding and other forms of compensation. Burnham rejects reparations while proposing more favourable debt arrangements for poorer Commonwealth countries. He must explain where ordinary development policy ends and historical compensation begins. This is part of a wider failure of confidence in Britain's political leadership. Labour ministers appear more comfortable revisiting the country's historical failings than defending its inheritance. National pride is too often treated as something requiring explanation, qualification or apology. Meanwhile, the country faces mounting pressures on public services, living standards, housing and national security. The British people alive today neither owned the plantations nor authorised the slave ships. They inherited a country whose history contains cruelty and courage, exploitation and reform. They have every reason to learn that history honestly, without being expected to assume personal guilt for the conduct of distant generations. Burnham says today's Britons cannot be held liable for historical wrongs. He should stand by that principle and explain why a formal apology is necessary. Britain's past requires honesty, perspective and moral seriousness. It does not require an endless procession of national apologies. A Prime Minister's duty is to represent the British people of today, not burden them with the guilt of centuries past.