Judging from the reaction, you might think that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had just lost a war. One former cabinet minister labeled Starmer’s team a “surrender squad,” while a former prime minister called on Britons to “fight, fight and fight again for the freedoms the people voted for.”
In truth, Starmer had not surrendered anything. He had merely proposed a few tweaks to the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with Europe. His so-called reset is, if anything, too modest. It risks missing an opportunity to repair the UK’s economic wounds and strengthen its ties with the enormous trading bloc next door.
Brexit’s economic costs are now well documented. By official estimates, leaving the EU imposed a 15 percent reduction in trade as a share of the economy, leading to a 4 percent loss of GDP over the long term. Trade remains largely tariff and quota-free, but layers of bureaucracy — from rules of origin to value-added tax requirements — have hurt businesses on both sides of the English Channel.
Starmer’s proposals, such as boosting food and agriculture trade, securing mutual recognition of professional qualifications and easing mobility for performing artists, aim to chip away at these barriers. A deal with the EU — which wants visa-free travel to the UK for young people and access to UK universities at local tuition rates — is not hard to envision.
Yet even those small gains are far from certain. Starmer’s stance on youth mobility — oddly equating it with the “free movement” of people, which he opposes — could stifle any such progress. His refusal to rejoin the EU’s Erasmus+ exchange program is another missed opportunity. In any event, such measures would raise the UK’s GDP by 0.3 percent to 0.7 percent over 10 years — hardly making a dent in the lost output imposed by Brexit.
Both sides ought to think bigger. Starmer should ignore the hysterical voices in UK politics and listen to voters. Regrets over Brexit have grown more pronounced, as the economic wounds have become undeniable. He should do a better job of pitching repaired ties as, effectively, a much-needed stimulus measure.
For their part, the EU’s negotiators — still smoldering over Brexit — have been slow to acknowledge that closer cooperation could serve their own interests: boosting competitiveness, reigniting growth and rebuilding defense.
A recent survey found that many Europeans think a closer security relationship is worth making concessions in other areas. That could be a starting point for bolder dealmaking.
The key is to start small, as Starmer has, and focus on the mutually beneficial. Investment in electricity interconnectors would improve energy efficiency and reduce price volatility, for instance; the two sides should not wait until the expiration of an existing energy framework in 2026 to renew and improve that cooperation.
Similarly, aligning the UK with the EU’s carbon border adjustment would avoid incurring new trade barriers when it kicks in two years from now.
Ultimately, the UK should aim to rejoin the EU’s single market, restoring the economic benefits that were needlessly squandered after Brexit. In the meantime, the faster both sides embrace pragmatic steps to remove barriers, the sooner voters could see tangible benefits. A win-win, as they say.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS