Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Richard Hakluyt]

Jenrick would sell his soul to the devil for sixpence.

Re the anti-semitism, the recent census recorded 277,000 Jews living in the UK, so quite a small demographic. Proportionally the anti-semitic attacks are far worse than many realise.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I'd go slightly further with the point that was made by Ben Judah. About 100,000 of the British Jewish community live in a fairly small area of North-West London which has Golders Green kind of at its heart.

There's lots of connections because it is a small community in a small area. So it's like repeated targeted  and attempted arson attacks, stabbing etc in a couple of months in, say, Bedford. It's very concentrated.

[Sheilbh]

Kemi Badenoch accuses Keir Starmer of buying 'dirty Russian oil'
The government's decision to soften sanctions on jet fuel and diesel derived from Russian oil has blindsided 'livid' ministers
Steven Swinford, Political Editor, and Larisa Brown, Defence Editor
Wednesday May 20 2026, 8.30pm, The Times

Britain has been warned by Ukraine that it risks funding "Russia's war machine" after the government softened new sanctions on jet fuel and diesel derived from Russian oil.

Ministers are easing the sanctions on Russian oil that is processed in third countries amid concern about the impact of the Iran war on supplies of jet fuel and the cost of living.

The Department for Business and Trade slipped out a statement late on Tuesday stating that it will allow imports of "relevant processed oil products" from Wednesday.

The government announced the new sanctions in October in an effort to put further pressure on Russia. However, it has now decided to pare them back on a temporary basis in a bid to limit the impact on households.

Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said the move was "insane" and accused Sir Keir Starmer of buying "dirty Russian oil" at prime minister's questions. "That money will be used to fund the killing of Ukrainian soldiers," she said. "Isn't he ashamed?"

Starmer insisted that the government was not lifting sanctions "in any way whatsoever". He said: "What we announced yesterday was a strong new package of new sanctions going well beyond existing sanctions, so it is a new package. We also issued two targeted short-term licenses to phase the new sanctions in and to protect UK consumers. That is standard practice."

Ministers were left blindsided by the announcement and were said to be "livid" about the handling of it. Sir Chris Bryant, a trade minister, apologised in the Commons for the "clumsy" nature of the announcement.

Starmer spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, on Wednesday evening and assured him that Britain was doing "everything possible to debilitate and degrade Putin's war machine".

He said that the sanctions meant that there would be "less Russian oil on the market, with Russia weaker as a result".

Vladyslav Vlasiuk, the Ukrainian presidential commissioner for sanctions policy, initially issued a strong rebuke of the plans. "We understand the rationale behind the UK's decision to ease some restrictions on Russian energy exports, but disagree with the approach," he said. "Pressure on Russia should only increase, while market stability should be ensured by addressing root causes — [the Strait of] Hormuz."

He subsequently clarified that Britain had not lifted existing sanctions but said: "Our concern relates specifically to temporary exemptions that may still generate additional revenues for Russia's war machine."

John Foreman, a former defence attaché who served in Moscow and Kyiv, said: "I think this shows again the gap between rhetoric and reality.

"The government likes to say it is supporting Ukraine as long as it takes and we stand shoulder to shoulder, and that it is getting tough on Russia. The UK has led the tightening of sanctions and taken economic cost.

"This easement — however temporary — goes against this principled position and could lead to further backsliding by the UK and European nations. Russia will gloat and assess that this step reinforces their position that the West is ultimately frit."

Bryant told MPs: "I think we've ended up giving the wrong impression of what we're trying to do. We're trying to strengthen the regime, not weaken it. We're not waiving any sanctions."

Dame Emily Thornberry, a Labour MP and chairwoman of the foreign affairs select committee, accused Starmer of "letting down" the Ukrainian people.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I have heard from people in Ukraine overnight and I know that they are very disappointed and are asking me why it is Britain is doing this. People feel very let down ... Just because other countries are behaving in the wrong way does not mean that we should join them. It really doesn't. We are Britain, one of Ukraine's strongest allies, and we have led the fight against Russia."

Two thirds of Britain's jet fuel was supplied by refineries in the Gulf before the war, with the fuel travelling through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway in the Middle East. Since the conflict started jet fuel prices have doubled.

Willie Walsh, the head of the International Air Transport Association which represents airlines, has warned that higher prices for air travel in Europe were "inevitable".

I would just flag that the line that these are temporary is a little bit disingenuous. That may well be the intent (and, beccause of the criticism of them end up being the reality too) - however the relevant license is actually indefinite but subject to periodic review. As I say my suspicion is that if they'd got away with issuing this without anyone noticing it would be less temporary.

I think it's a really interesting story because it highlights the problems of our energy policy, but also the degree to which the British State is not living in the real world any more and is not serious.

Fundamentally we've not cared about industrial policy so we allowed a refinery that manufactured jet fuel and diesel to shut down (our chemical industry is also basically closing down right now). Also we have a net zero policy on electricity which has issues/questions (but I think is broadly the right direction) - but that's only 20% of our energy mix and the rest (housing, transport, industry, agriculture) relies on fossil fuels in one way or another. In relation to fossil fuels (which even on DESNZ's own projections we'll be relying on for decades) the basic view seems to be that domestic productions, manufacturing and storage don't matter because the market will provide. That maybe worked 20 years ago (when the Treasury were very proud that they were very "good" at energy) - but I don't think it does in the world we're in now. There's three main sources. The Middle East which is constrained and controlled now. Russia who we are confronting because they're invading Ukraine. Or America who has become hugely more important for our (and Europe's) energy supply since 2022 - but is not a country you'd want to increase your dependency on (we're already now adding energy dependency to security dependency).

Domestic supply could help - the King's Speech committed to banning new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and winding down existing assets. I'd just point out that cross Europe other countries facing similar dilemmas like Norway, Poland, Germany and Denmark are currently looking at extending the lives of existing assets, new exploration and some are even reconsidering the ban on fracking. The UK is going in the opposite direction. When the Treasury thought they were good at energy it was based on diversity of supply, with multiple options and contract lengths and basically relying on the market. I think in the current world that model, plus the lack of industrial policy (including energy storage) and closing off any change on domestic production is not a good policy mix. It's a very British policy mix of constraining supply, not investing, going for the "efficient"/"lean" model with support for demand through energy price caps - but I think the world we're in now it's not efficient or lean or wise but just increasing our vulnerability and dependencies. It's a policy mix from a different world, from the end of history when everything was about marginal gains and optimisation not external supply shocks and great power competition.

I also think politically we're still stuck a decade or two ago in that very often it's just framed as almost a bit culture war-y: do you believe in net zero/climate change or not. When that's really not the issue. I have questions about other bits of our energy policy. But DESNZ's core projection is even if we do all we're trying to do on renewables and nuclear we will still need a lot of fossil fuels for decades. And I don't think we can be so blase about where it's extracted from, where it's procssed and where it's stored.

None of it seems serious or engaging with the actual world we're in now. It just all feels a bit phoney war.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The damage green ideology does is insane.
Sure, build out renewables but only do so because it is advantageous economically,  not because you want to reach the ideological goal that is net zero. Because the only thing that will be zero is your economy.

[Josquius]

Kemi Badenoch accuses Keir Starmer of buying 'dirty Russian oil'
The government's decision to soften sanctions on jet fuel and diesel derived from Russian oil has blindsided 'livid' ministers
Steven Swinford, Political Editor, and Larisa Brown, Defence Editor
Wednesday May 20 2026, 8.30pm, The Times

It confused me when I read the story but apparently this has been a huge comms fuck up and they've actually introduced controls where there were none before.

Domestic supply could help - the King's Speech committed to banning new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and winding down existing assets. I'd just point out that cross Europe other countries facing similar dilemmas like Norway, Poland, Germany and Denmark are currently looking at extending the lives of existing assets,

With their industries being state owned don't they have more ability to pass on the savings domestically.
The arguments against more north Sea exploration seem to add up most to me.
We really need to be pushing harder to break free of gas - gradually fazing out the gas and electric price connection for instance.

The damage green ideology does is insane.
Sure, buikd out renewables but only do so because it is advantageous economically,  not because you want to rzch the ideological goal that is net zero. Because the only thing that will be zero is your economy.

So if your motivation is net zero building renewables is bad for your economy.
If your motivation is just about the economy then building those same renewables is good for your economy?

[Richard Hakluyt]

I think the root of the problem is that the commons is full of politicians and no statesmen or stateswomen.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Hmmm....imagine Gladstone's despair if he could view the current shower 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The motivation should be doing things that is advantageous for the economy and strategic position of the nation.
Reaching net zero is not a concern. It's ideological nonsense.
Which doesn't mean we can't reach it but it'll be as a side effect of decisions and policies that strengthen the economy rather than burn it to the ground.
So no need to be more catholic than the pope. No one else is and our competition is the US and China. Just saying.

How many times do we in europe pay more for a kwh of energy compared to the US for example? Fix that, improve our competitive position. Make the needed decisions with that as the primary focus and not because you want to reach net zero as a primary goal.

[garbon]

The motivation should be doing things that is advantageous for the economy and strategic position of the nation.

Who determines that and how?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The motivation should be doing things that is advantageous for the economy and strategic position of the nation.

Who determines that and how?

Ideally not the greens.

[Josquius]

The motivation should be doing things that is advantageous for the economy and strategic position of the nation.
Reaching net zero is not a concern. It's ideological nonsense.
Which doesn't mean we can't reach it but it'll be as a side effect of decisions and policies that strengthen the economy rather than burn it to the ground.
So no need to be more catholic than the pope. No one else is and our competition is the US and China. Just saying.

Increasingly security agencies are highlighting climate change as the biggest threat to our way of life.
This was fairly big news not too long ago.
https://theconversation.com/a-uk-climate-security-report-backed-by-the-intelligence-services-was-quietly-buried-a-pattern-weve-seen-many-times-before-274325

Fighting climate change is 100% in the national interest.

But even ignoring that. The motivation for green energy doesn't matter. It makes sense for financial and national security reasons no matter whether you're doing it for grim short term hard nosed financial reasons or because you're thinking longer term and want to save the planet.
It's the same solar panels either way.

How many times do we in europe pay more for a kwh of energy compared to the US for example?

Ironically it's reactionary refusal to invest in green technologies and blind trust in fossil fuels which got us into this situation.

Fix that, improve our competitive position. Make the needed decisions with that as the primary focus and not because you want to reach net zero as a primary goal.

Decisions aren't made for single reasons.
Net zero, national security, short term energy bills.... All these things go together