Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch (Image: Getty)

Kemi Badenoch has vowed to ban long-term jobless benefits claimants from spending their welfare cash on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling. Jobless claimants who have not paid enough into the system will have their benefits cut by 30% and loaded onto a “Back To Work” card that bans alcohol, cigarettes, cash withdrawals, and betting.

Under the Tories’ plans, anyone fit to work will get six months on full Universal Credit benefits to find a job, but the full rate will only be kept after that by those who have earned it through paying taxes.

Mrs Badenoch said, “Some will say this is unfair to people claiming benefits. What is unfair is a system where someone who can work chooses not to and earns more from benefits than someone in a job.

“If you can work, you should work. Helping people into work is not punishment. The best welfare is a well-paid job. So, we will be tough on those who exploit the system because the current system is unfair to workers, taxpayers and those who truly need support. We should not be borrowing from our children and grandchildren to support people who simply refuse to work.

“Welfare must be a safety net for those who genuinely need it, not a lifestyle choice for those who can’t be bothered.”

Brexit Vindicated as EU’s Disastrous Economic Blunder Is Laid Bare

Ten years after Britain voted to leave the European Union, the economic debate surrounding Brexit remains far from settled. Supporters of Brexit argue that recent difficulties inside the EU demonstrate why Britain was right to seek greater independence, while critics point to the additional trade barriers created by leaving the single market and customs union.

The latest economic figures have added fresh material to both sides of the argument. The European economy is facing weak growth, higher inflation and major structural challenges, while the United Kingdom is also dealing with sluggish productivity, elevated borrowing costs and pressure on household finances. The evidence therefore does not produce a simple verdict, but it does show why the Brexit debate continues to attract strong political attention.

The European Commission’s 2026 spring forecast projected EU GDP growth of 1.1% in 2026, down from 1.5% in 2025, with inflation expected to reach 3.1%. The euro area’s projected growth rate was even lower, at 0.9%. The Commission attributed part of the deterioration to the energy shock associated with conflict in the Middle East, alongside continuing geopolitical and trade uncertainties.

For Brexit supporters, such figures provide an opportunity to challenge the assumption that Britain’s departure automatically condemned the UK to economic underperformance.

The EU’s economic problems are real

The European Union is confronting several challenges that cannot simply be attributed to Brexit.

Weak productivity growth, ageing populations, high energy costs, pressure on public finances and geopolitical uncertainty affect countries across the continent. The European Commission itself has highlighted competitiveness as an important concern.

The current energy shock has further complicated the picture. Higher energy prices can increase production costs for manufacturers, raise household bills and make European businesses less competitive internationally.

These pressures existed independently of Britain’s decision to leave the EU.

That distinction matters because it would be misleading to claim that every economic problem facing Europe is the result of Brexit or EU policy. The pandemic, Russia’s war against Ukraine, global energy markets, US trade policy and developments in China have all affected European economies.

Nevertheless, Brexit supporters argue that Britain’s ability to set its own trade, regulatory and economic policies gives the country additional options when responding to these international pressures.

Britain has not suffered the economic collapse once feared

One of the strongest arguments made by supporters of Brexit is that many of the most dramatic predictions made before the 2016 referendum did not materialise.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, while identifying significant Brexit-related trade costs, noted in its 2026 ten-year assessment that Brexit had not produced the economic collapse some had forecast before the referendum. It also observed that UK GDP growth had not performed worse than the EU average over the period examined and that London had retained its position as a major global financial centre.

Official data also show that Britain’s economy continues to expand. The Office for National Statistics estimated that real GDP increased by 0.4% in the second quarter of 2026, following growth of 0.6% in the first quarter. GDP was estimated to be 1.2% higher than a year earlier.

These figures do not prove that Brexit improved Britain’s economic performance. They do, however, challenge the idea that leaving the EU inevitably resulted in economic collapse.

That distinction is central to the continuing argument.

The counterargument: Britain paid a price for leaving

While Brexit supporters can point to Europe’s economic weaknesses, opponents argue that this does not demonstrate that Brexit was economically beneficial.

The House of Commons Library recently summarised a broad body of research which concludes that the UK economy is smaller than it would otherwise have been had Britain remained in the EU. Estimates vary considerably, ranging from around 2% to 8% lower GDP compared with hypothetical remain scenarios.

The Office for Budget Responsibility continues to assume that the UK’s post-Brexit trading relationship will reduce long-run productivity by around 4% compared with remaining in the EU. Its analysis attributes much of this to higher non-tariff barriers affecting trade.

The important phrase is “compared with what would otherwise have happened.”

There is no real-world alternative Britain in which the country remained in the EU while everything else stayed exactly the same. Economists therefore have to construct counterfactual scenarios, and those scenarios inevitably depend on assumptions.

That is one reason why estimates of the economic cost of Brexit vary so widely.

Trade remains the biggest dividing line

The clearest measurable change since Brexit concerns Britain’s relationship with its largest nearby trading partner.

The UK is now outside the EU single market and customs union. Although the Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides tariff-free trade in qualifying goods, companies face additional procedures, documentation and regulatory requirements.

The Centre for European Reform published research in June 2026 estimating that Brexit had depressed UK exports to the EU by 12%, with much of the effect attributed to Britain’s departure from the single market. Other researchers dispute some of the assumptions behind such estimates.

At the same time, official figures show that Britain continues to trade extensively with both the EU and non-EU countries.

ONS data for July 2026 showed that inflation-adjusted UK goods exports to the EU increased by 7.2% compared with the previous month, while exports to non-EU countries were broadly stable.

This illustrates the complexity of the Brexit story. Leaving the EU did not end Britain’s trade with Europe. Instead, it changed the conditions under which that trade takes place.

New opportunities outside the bloc

Brexit supporters also emphasise the freedom to negotiate independent trade agreements.

Britain has pursued agreements and partnerships outside the EU, seeking to strengthen commercial links with countries including Australia and India.

Whether these arrangements compensate for increased barriers with European markets remains disputed.

The House of Commons Library notes that the OBR expects new free-trade agreements outside the EU to have only a marginal long-term effect compared with the economic impact of leaving the single market and customs union. Other analysts argue that the value of regulatory independence and global trade opportunities is difficult to capture through conventional GDP modelling.

This creates a fundamental disagreement about how Brexit should be judged.

One side places greater emphasis on measurable trade and productivity effects. The other gives greater weight to sovereignty, regulatory independence and the ability to make decisions without EU institutions.

The EU is also confronting competitiveness questions

There is another development that has given Brexit supporters new political ammunition: Brussels itself is increasingly focused on competitiveness.

The EU is attempting to strengthen European industry in areas such as electric vehicles, renewable energy and strategic manufacturing. Proposed “Made in Europe” measures could favour products manufactured within the bloc.

The implications are significant for Britain because the UK remains deeply integrated into European supply chains. The automotive industry alone has warned that restrictions affecting British-made vehicles could damage both British and European businesses. Reuters reported that annual UK-EU automotive trade is worth around €80 billion.

That situation demonstrates both the opportunities and limitations created by Brexit.

Britain has more formal independence from Brussels, but British companies remain economically connected to a neighbouring market that represents a major destination for exports.

A debate that is unlikely to disappear

The political argument has already entered a new phase.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said that his immediate priority is closer UK-EU cooperation and improved trade relations, while refusing to rule out the possibility that a future Labour manifesto could consider reversing Brexit. He has also warned that disagreements over European industrial policy could affect delicate UK-Ireland supply chains.

At the same time, prominent Brexit supporters continue to argue that Britain should use its independence rather than gradually reconstructing links with EU institutions.

The disagreement reflects two competing visions of Britain’s future.

One sees Brexit primarily as an economic trade-off: greater sovereignty in exchange for higher barriers to trade. The other sees sovereignty as an economic asset because governments can establish their own regulations, taxation policies and international relationships.

What the latest evidence actually shows

The latest evidence does not establish that Brexit has been either an unqualified economic success or an economic disaster.

Europe is experiencing weak growth and serious structural challenges, but those problems have multiple causes. Britain has continued to grow and has avoided the dramatic economic collapse predicted by some pre-referendum scenarios, but the country also faces significant trade and productivity costs associated with its new relationship with the EU.

The National Institute for Economic and Social Research summarised the situation as a trade-off between greater political autonomy and higher trade costs, rather than a simple story of victory or failure.

That may ultimately be the most important lesson from the first decade of Brexit.

The European Union’s current economic difficulties provide legitimate grounds for Brexit supporters to question claims that membership was the only route to prosperity. But Europe’s problems do not, by themselves, demonstrate that leaving the EU increased Britain’s economic performance.

Equally, evidence of higher UK-EU trade barriers does not settle the broader political question of whether the sovereignty gained through Brexit was worth the economic trade-offs.

Ten years after the referendum, Britain and the EU remain economically intertwined. The next stage of the debate will therefore be less about whether Brexit happened and more about how Britain chooses to manage its relationship with Europe while exploiting opportunities beyond it.