Under Donald Trump’s original tariff plan, UK exports would only face half of the extra tariffs for exporting to the United States than exports from the European Union. It is a reminder that controlling one’s own destiny comes with benefits. With Trump moderating his stance on the EU, that “Brexit dividend” is not yet bearing fruit yet, but ultimately, it should be clear for friend and foe how important having control over one’s own trade policy is. The UK is now able to close its own deal with the United States, not having to depend on Brussels and other European governments. With Trump likely demanding more flexibility on the UK’s agricultural import regime, the UK government may now ultimately led consumer choice prevail over special interests keen to keep foreign competition out, and not just in agriculture.

Less in the headlines has been Keir Starmer’s recent anouncement to abandon the previous Conservative government’s policy towards Artificial Intelligence, which was focused on regulating it in order to mitigate the risks. Instead, Starmer now wants to “turbocharge AI”, something which as seen as aligning with the approach of Donald Trump to deregulate tech, marking a u-turn to former PM Rishi Sunak’s safety-first approach. Apart from trade independence, this is a second important policy area where the Labour government is able to diverge from the European Union for Britain’s benefit. In the EU, very restrictive AI rules have just entered into force, not hindered by the fact that the EU hardly counts any AI champions.

Since the UK has left the EU, the latter has doubled down on regulating, centrally planning and transferring taxpayer resources, with the “green deal” and its 800 billion euro scandal-ridden Covid recovery scheme, which has been financed with jointly issued EU debt.

It is ironic to see Labour exploiting the opportunities of Brexit. So far, the UK only endured the downsides. Trump’s tariff war may be costly, but it is forcing Britain to a fundamental policy rethink, also to finally exploit the opportunities provided by Brexit.

Climate policy Diverging from EU AI regulation is one thing, but when it comes to climate policy, the UK Labour government is possibly even more extreme than EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen & co, which have been forced recently to take back some steam, as voters revolted against costly green policies during the 2024 European Parliament election.

The face of the UK government’s drive to double down on costly climate policies is of course Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, for whom no price is high enough in order to get global temperatures down just a miniscule little bit, with the fate of British Steel as only the most recent example.

Then there is hope. Reportedly, a campaign within government is underway to undermine him and hobble his net zero agenda. This as part of a wider strategy to “unpick” Net Zero, to see off the threat of Reform UK. A Miliband ally is quoted saying: “I’ve heard people suggesting that after welfare and aid, they’re looking to target Net Zero, and that this is part of a bigger agenda of neutering possible attacks from the populist-right.”

On the side of Miliband are a whole range of NGOs promoting ever more restrictions, spending programmes and central planning. Miliband is more than happy to support their agenda, for example having appointed the CEOs of green NGOs "The Wildlife Trust" and "Centre for Net Zero" to his Clean Power 2030 Advisory Commission.

The damage Trump’s tariff war is inflicting on the global economy, which the UK won’t escape, may only strengthen calls to at least reconsider some of the climate policy excesses of the past.

Government-funded “non-governmental organisations”

Escaping the grip of Brussels is one thing. Escaping the grip of often taxpayer-funded NGOs quite another. At the moment, there are more than 170,000 charities in the UK, which spent £94 billion in 2024. Then, the cost of the Ministry of Defence was £53.9 billion, by contrast.

Many of these NGOs perform laudable work, but quite a few are nothing more than glorified lobbyists for leftist policy causes. In itself, there is nothing wrong with that, expect that perhaps this should not be financed by the taxpayer. For example, should charities protesting the previous Conservative government’s efforts to stop the illegal small boat crossings by copying the succesful Australian approach receive more than 200 million euro over four years, as they have? This feels like rigging the game.

“Civil society” funded by the taxpayer does not really constitute civil society. Even the European Commission is now learning this the hard way. Following revelations by Dutch daily De Telegraaf that it had been providing subsidies from its environmentalist LIFE fund to green NGOs to lobby for EU Commission proposals with members of the European Parliament, the Commission now has agreed to not allow any grants given to NGOs participating from that fund ...