The Independent – which insiders complain has now totally irrevocably gone into a “kind of loony tin-foil-hatted propaganda mode” – ran a bizarre front page splash this weekend: ‘five years on, the true cost of Brexit’. The dodgy stats fell apart in moments as X erupted in pushback against the flimsy remain put-up job…
Economist Julian Jessop weighed in to debunk the wild claims:
Just a few example…
1⃣ the ‘divorce settlement’ is money that the UK would have had to pay anyway had we remained in the EU, so not a ‘cost’ of Brexit (and it is turning out to be less than expected anyway)
2⃣ the correct takeaway from the LSE study (and a point they made…
— Julian Jessop (@julianHjessop) January 5, 2025
Jessop also suggested he had been selectively quoted in the piece: “FYI, I’m quoted here on the upfront costs of #Brexit, though not (of course) on the longer-term benefits! This is just an incoherent jumble of #badbrexittakes which have already been debunked many times before, by myself and others“. A common Independent tactic, leading to a cringe fest for those involved…
And for further quotes to pad out the weak story the reporters turned to… none other than arch-remainer in chief, Lord Heseltine. The pro-Remain rant concluded with more space-filling ballast from none other than Stella Creasy – chair of Labour Movement for Europe, which campaigns for the UK to rejoin the EU. You couldn’t make it up, unless you’re working for The Independent…
Pressure is still piling on Rachel Reeves after Guido exposed her LinkedIn CV edits and her claims to be an ‘economist’ on legal documents at a time she’s since admitted she wasn’t. Despite The Guardian scrambling to defend her, and Reeves’ team spinning the story by insisting she was “an economist by trade” (still not an economist, then), the scandal isn’t going away. Both Tory and Reform MPs have accused her of “lying”, and the subject was brought up three times in PMQs yesterday. Even the BBC is now picking up the story…
The Independent has now deployed a desperate new argument to support the Chancellor: it doesn’t matter. Under the paper’s “Politics Explained” section is the article “Why is Rachel Reeves accused of ‘lying’ on her CV?” written by Sean O’Grady. The piece begins by explaining how she edited her LinkedIn profile as it was “a misrepresentation of her actual activities” going on to say, “What’s the problem? ‘Lying’—at least according to one lobby journalist.” It then asks, “Does it matter?” The bizarre conclusion: “No.”
O’Grady writes: “Reeves’ “lies” are nothing more than harmless CV embellishments—a bit of boasting, nothing to get worked up about.” Guido doubts The Independent would be so forgiving if this was about a Tory Chancellor. Reeves isn’t going to get much help with ‘it was harmless’ as her strongest defence line…
Douglas Alexander – a friend of Starmer’s – was asked on Sky News if the PM will be in post at the next election. He wasn’t so sure himself:
“I think he will. There are no certainties but of course I think he will lead and I think he should because, frankly, on the biggest call in this parliament he’s exercised the right judgment, which is to keep us out of someone else’s war.”