Free Market Economist, Trade & Agriculture. Briefings for Britain editorial group https://globalbritain Views my own. Retweets not necessarily endorsements.

London, England
Joined June 2014
Here is my new paper for the Great British Business Council on the importance of oil, gas and coal to the UK economy. The UK’s industrial decline is not inevitable, but the result of decades of deliberate policy choices that have undermined domestic energy production and driven manufacturing offshore. Lowering UK employment and tax revenues, while increasing the UK trade deficit. The paper also includes a plan to reverse this. gbbc.uk/uk-deindustrialisati…
67
635
41
1,216
133,104
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
Why were Jonathan Powell, Peter Mandelson and Lord Hermer appointed without vetting? The answer is that Chagos was a deal Starmer couldn't refuse to make. Here's a timeline of the key stages of the Chagos treachery. In 1982, after it became known that the Chagos seabed may contain vast mineral wealth, Mauritius set up a select committee to examine the matter. However, sea-mining technology was in its infancy, and it was too expensive to be commercially viable at that time. In 2003, as underwater mining technologies advanced and the value of minerals and rare earth elements soared, mining the Chagos seabed became an exciting possibility again; Mauritius appointed the eminent international barrister Sir Ian Brownlie as advisor for the Chagos Archipelago. A former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Brownlie was a good friend of Sir Satcam Boolell, a former Labour deputy prime minister of Mauritius, and High Commissioner in London. In 2009, Brownlie led the first Mauritius delegation to the Foreign Office in London seeking a Chagos deal. Among the delegation was Sir Satcam Boolell's son Satyajit, who became Mauritius Director of Public Prosecutions the same year. In 2010, after Brownlie died in a motor accident in Egypt, Sir Keir Starmer’s “great mate”, Philippe Sands, a leading human-rights lawyer who has publicly boasted of humiliating the UK in international courts, took over as counsel to Mauritius for Chagos. In 2013, Satyajit Boolell invited Keir Starmer, whom he had become friendly with during Starmer's time as the UK's DPP, to a legal conference at the 5-star Balaclava resort in Mauritius. During the trip, Starmer discussed the future of the Chagos Archipelago with then Mauritius prime minister Navin Ramgoolam. After Starmer’s 2013 visit, Ramgoolam wrote that he and Starmer were aligned over Chagos. In 2015, Ramgoolam was arrested on money-laundering charges when large sums of cash in foreign currencies, suitcases full of brand-new luxury watches, and blank British visas were found in his home. Also in 2015, Starmer was elected to the British Parliament. In 2019, Philippe Sands, after a campaign of lobbying the UN, obtained an International Court of Justice ruling (advisory opinion only, and non-binding) that the Chagos islands should be given to Mauritius. Sands used the ICJ ruling as leverage in the following years in his efforts to persuade the Conservative government to give Chagos to Mauritius. In 2020, Starmer became leader of the Labour Party. In 2021, Sands received Mauritius' top honour, The Most Distinguished Order of the Star and Key of the Indian Ocean. In 2022, Sands made an unauthorized entry into the Chagos Archipelago for a flag-raising ceremony. Sands tweets at the time, “It’s morning on Chagos, where the flag of Mauritius flies." In 2023, Sands became a Mauritius citizen, but retains his British and French citizenships. 🧧In November 2023, David Cameron replaced James Cleverly as Foreign Secretary and, with the support of other senior Tories, stopped a Chagos deal saying, it’s not in the national interest, as reported in Hansard. In July 2024, Starmer became UK Prime Minister and just ten weeks after entering Downing Street, he agreed a deal with Mauritius, despite there having been no mention of Chagos during the election campaign, and the Labour manifesto pledging to protect the BOT. in November of 2024, Ramgoolam was elected Mauritius prime minister again after a snap general election, and took over from the incumbent PM, Pravind Jugnauth, to lead the Chagos negotiations with the UK. In December 2024, after 14 years in the role, Philippe Sands steps down as Mauritius counsel for Chagos. In January 2025, Attorney General Lord Hermer recused himself from signing off on the Chagos deal, and declined to say why. In February 2025, Jugnauth was arrested on money-laundering charges after large sums of cash in foreign currencies and suitcases full of brand-new luxury watches were found in his home. In May 2025, twelve years after discussing the future of Chagos in Mauritius, Starmer and Ramgoolam sat down in London to sign the treaty that transfers the archipelago's sovereignty to Mauritius. The Fall Out. The Chagos deal does🟥NOT secure the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia. The deal operationally hobbles the base, and increases the dangers to the British and American military personnel, and the civilians who work there, and in the wider Central Indian Ocean region. Diego Garcia's remoteness made it easy to defend in the past. This deal leaves the base horribly vulnerable to the growing threats posed by the new longer-range missiles, and more sophisticated and lethal drones. When Keir Starmer, Lord Hermer and Vijay Rangarajan, the Director General at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, made the deal it was fully understood that the outer islands of the Chagos Archipelago were by far the best locations to deploy early warning, and air-defense systems, to protect the main base from missile and drone attacks. Yet they still decided to lease only Diego Garcia. Andy Burnham, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, and Defense Minister Wes Streeting, know the deal increases the dangers to the lives of British service personnel, and our NATO allies personnel, in the strategically important Central Indian Ocean region. To double down and push the deal with that knowledge is a shameful act of betrayal. While the deal leaves Diego Garcia vulnerable to attack, it also renders the base itself ineffective and operationally hobbled. Mauritius is a signatory of the Pelindaba African Weapon-Free Zone Treaty which bans all nuclear weapons from treaty members' territory. Pelindaba gives each of the more the 40 countries who have signed it the right to inspect the facilities on Diego Garcia if they suspect nuclear arms are being stored there. The UK's nuclear-armed Trident submarines will no longer be able to enter Chagos waters, or visit Diego Garcia which is the only island in the region which has suitable anchorage and facilities for maintenance and restocking provisions, etc. The US's nuclear-armed submarines, ships, and planes will also be banned from Diego Garcia and the Chagos Archipelago's waters. Mauritius gets complete sovereignty over everything, including control of the airspace above the Chagos Archipelago, which at 250,000 square miles is the same size as France. The implications of controlling such a vast area of airspace in a strategically vital region are huge. Mauritius has shown it will ban planes entering its current airspace when China asks. The Chagos Deal does not ‘secure the base’. It methodically destroys every element required for operations. The text and annexes state it will: ❌Constrain future Ops and use of the base ❌Prevent the placing of sensors and other maritime installations ❌Require us to sight our foes on defence planning ❌Mean we’re unable to use our preferred contractors ❌See us lose of control over electromagnetic spectrum.
78
811
76
1,787
49,749
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
Labour manifesto, 2024. Couldn't have been clearer.
254
1,788
88
4,711
55,880
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
The Prime Minister seems very conflicted on Brexit. Ahead of the budget tomorrow, he's announced the removal of import tariffs on over 100 products like baked beans, chocolates and fertilizer. This is a freedom you don't have as an EU member at all. gov.uk/government/news/every…
14
144
6
342
4,645
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
Can someone please explain why Germany spent €400 billion on its energy transition? Clearly it wasn’t to save the climate.
This chart is simply mind-blowing. It’s a perfect visualization of the German “green” energy transition though. Let’s take a look. 1. Germany increased its installed energy generation capacity since 2000 by a whopping 120%, yet German electricity generation fell by 13%. Isn’t that a paradox? The answer is simple, renewables do not generate electricity constantly, as required for an industrial nation, so they need parallel energy-generating infrastructure, e.g., gas. That’s the main reason countries that moved to renewables, like Germany or the UK, have the highest energy prices for industry and households. 2. Based on fairly conservative estimates, Germany has spent about €400 billion on this “green” energy transition, an eye-watering amount. 3. Higher energy prices have made German energy-intensive industries uncompetitive. Industrial production imploded, and countless well-paid jobs disappeared. This explains the reduction in energy demand and generation. 4. By shutting clean nuclear plants while keeping coal and gas, German energy production generates about 10 times more emissions than France’s. You read that right: 10 times more. If Germany had switched off coal power plants first instead of nuclear, by now it would have avoided CO2 emissions equivalent to Berlin’s emissions over almost a century. Keep that in mind next time you chew on a paper drinking straw. 5. Worse still, production moved from Germany to Asia, where the same products generate far more emissions in manufacturing and shipping. A Chinese-built car shipped to Europe causes about 70% more emissions than one built in Germany, cement production causes twice as many. Honestly, can you name a bigger absurdity than the German “green” energy transition? They spent a fortune to ruin their industry and hurt the climate badly. Isn’t it hilarious that German greens seriously claim other countries will follow the German way? In which parallel universe do these people live?
49
103
15
336
18,781
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
3/ Growth in financial services concentrated in fees (reaching new high), interest income broadly flat. My forecast (9/17, link in next reply) predicted a £6.5bn loss, compared to the most cited £25bn Oliver Wyman figure In fact, they *increased* by £13.1bn
1
3
2
307
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
1/ Services exports to the EU: all time high ✅ 4Q rolling data, starts Q4 2016 (ie calendar 2016, year of Brexit vote) ends Q2 2026. Red line is 2020, last year before UK exited EU Source:
2
3
2
2
893
This is true so it’s questionable as to why our PM would now choose to lie to the electorate…
"Free movement had allowed, in my view, the undercutting of wages. Some people debate this, but I saw evidence of it. Where people were brought in by agencies from other European countries and it was used to bring wages down" Andy Burnham in 2019
1
33
1
85
1,461
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
The EU has changed dramatically since Britain voted to leave. Since 2021, more than 16 million people have migrated into EU countries from outside the bloc. Mainly from Africa and Asia. France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece have seen huge numbers of people entering their countries. The scale of migration across Europe has been enormous. And now we're discussing bringing back freedom of movement to Britain? That would mean restoring the right of EU citizens to move to Britain, live here and work here without a visa. It would also extend to migrants from outside Europe who have subsequently obtained EU citizenship, since we left. At a time when Britain is already facing enormous pressure on housing, infrastructure and public services, why would we surrender control over such a significant part of our immigration system? We voted to end freedom of movement. Bringing it back would be a catastrophic mistake.
51
105
11
251
8,286
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
Mahmood rubbishes the EU 'returns agreement' argument made by another smarmy Lib Dem.
2
18
1
45
3,053
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
May this year. "I am not proposing that the UK considers rejoining the EU. I respect the decision that was made at the referendum, and it would undermine everything I’ve said about strengthening democracy if we don’t respect that vote."
49
281
24
727
18,483
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
In 2025 Britain lost two of its oil refineries in a matter of months. Grangemouth, Scotland's only refinery, stopped refining, with 450 jobs gone. In Lincolnshire the Lindsey refinery, which made around a tenth of the fuel produced in this country, went bust and stopped production in August, taking about 625 jobs with it. A buyer was found for the site. It decided refining there was not viable. So we import. In the 12 months to August this year Britain bought £13.1 billion of refined oil from abroad. And on Wednesday, so the story goes, John Healey means to tax it. The plan is a "carbon charge" on imported petrol, diesel and other refined products, an extension of the carbon border tax that begins in January. The Energy Secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, is said to be keen. The reasoning offered is that British refineries carry millions of pounds in net-zero costs that their foreign competitors do not, so imported fuel undercuts them, and the fair thing is to charge the imports the same. In other words, the government accepts that the costs it imposes on British refineries make them - and, by extension, us - uncompetitive. It accepts that they are losing to foreign fuel because of those costs. And its answer is to leave every one of those costs exactly where it is, and tie the same weight to every tanker coming into the Humber. No British refinery becomes one penny more competitive by this. As part of Labour's longest-standing design, first put into immortal practice by that laconic colossus Clement Attlee, dooming one British arm of state capacity after another to scrofula and irrelevance, that is precisely the point. These people don't want Grangemouth to reopen, nor for Lindsey to restart. They're certainly not bothered about the money in your pocket, either, given the only thing this new step will channge is the price at the pump, for a country that already pays tax on more than half of every litre, and for a motorist who was promised a fuel duty freeze until the end of December and has no idea what comes after it. The TaxPayers' Alliance called it "a shameless tax raid disguised as environmental policy", which is about as generous as it deserves. This is the Metropolitan class's idea of industrial policy. When a British industry is crippled by the costs the state loads onto it, the state's remedy is to load the same costs onto everyone else, and call the result a level playing field. It is levelling, certainly. Everybody ends up lower. Call it The Labour Way. If you understood that energy is the economy, not merely part of it or the engine under it, you might design a programme like ours that takes the weight off instead. Progress would abolish the Carbon Price Support on day one and strips every environmental and social levy off energy bills within 21 days, with a statutory guarantee bringing industrial electricity from 18 to 20 pence a kilowatt-hour down below 8, so that a refinery, a steelworks or a chemicals plant can compete on price. Then we resume licensing in the North Sea, so that the oil under our own sea is ours to use. And we cut fuel duty permanently to 45 pence a litre, cancel the planned rises, and require a vote in both Houses of Parliament before any Chancellor can raise it again. Healey's refinery workers have already been paid off. His tax will be passed onto the working man, like it always is; the loser in this scheme is the van driver in Grimsby, filling up with imported diesel because the refinery up the road is shut.
22
184
12
452
19,039
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
Another reminder of the economic as well as political risks of reviving Brexit uncertainty... 👇
"It would throw up a huge dust cloud of uncertainty." Former chief economist at the Bank of England Andy Haldane says reopening a debate about Brexit ‘would be a damaging thing'.
1
7
25
911
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
This chart is simply mind-blowing. It’s a perfect visualization of the German “green” energy transition though. Let’s take a look. 1. Germany increased its installed energy generation capacity since 2000 by a whopping 120%, yet German electricity generation fell by 13%. Isn’t that a paradox? The answer is simple, renewables do not generate electricity constantly, as required for an industrial nation, so they need parallel energy-generating infrastructure, e.g., gas. That’s the main reason countries that moved to renewables, like Germany or the UK, have the highest energy prices for industry and households. 2. Based on fairly conservative estimates, Germany has spent about €400 billion on this “green” energy transition, an eye-watering amount. 3. Higher energy prices have made German energy-intensive industries uncompetitive. Industrial production imploded, and countless well-paid jobs disappeared. This explains the reduction in energy demand and generation. 4. By shutting clean nuclear plants while keeping coal and gas, German energy production generates about 10 times more emissions than France’s. You read that right: 10 times more. If Germany had switched off coal power plants first instead of nuclear, by now it would have avoided CO2 emissions equivalent to Berlin’s emissions over almost a century. Keep that in mind next time you chew on a paper drinking straw. 5. Worse still, production moved from Germany to Asia, where the same products generate far more emissions in manufacturing and shipping. A Chinese-built car shipped to Europe causes about 70% more emissions than one built in Germany, cement production causes twice as many. Honestly, can you name a bigger absurdity than the German “green” energy transition? They spent a fortune to ruin their industry and hurt the climate badly. Isn’t it hilarious that German greens seriously claim other countries will follow the German way? In which parallel universe do these people live?
51
245
32
621
40,306
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
No, Brexit didn’t cause the ‘small boats’ crisis Blaming Brexit for the ‘small boats’ crisis has become fashionable. Even the Prime Minister has now joined in, although his own Home Secretary appears to disagree (👇). Some argue that the problem began when the UK left the Dublin III agreement, which allowed asylum seekers to be returned to the first safe EU country they had entered. But there are much better explanations for the rise in small boat crossings, which began in 2018 (when the UK was still in the EU). The most important is the tightening of security at lorry parks, on trains and ferries, and additional restrictions at airports. This closed off alternative routes and forced people smugglers to change their business model. Illegal migrants who now arrive by boat are also more likely to be intercepted and therefore counted in official figures, whereas previously they just disappeared. Moreover, the UK rarely used Dublin III anyway, which further undermines claims that its mere existence was an effective deterrent. And it would be naïve to believe that EU countries would now be willing to take back large numbers of illegal migrants, especially in the current political climate. Indeed, France's own efforts to prevent small boats leaving its shores for Britain seem ineffective, despite a bilateral agreement and UK taxpayer funding... gbnews.com/politics/andy-bur…
4
30
1
88
2,871
A Taxing Dilemma 'Incredibly, UK employer NIC raised 50% more than corporation tax in 2025/6. Employer NIC has become the main way we tax businesses in the UK rather than on their profits. It makes no sense to tax a necessary business expense such as staff costs. This clearly disincentivises hiring human staff.' catherinemcbride.substack.co…
7
23
35
1,811
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
This chart shows really well the path the UK economy and society are on. Higher taxes throttle the UK’s growth, investment and innovation. When the tax take rises faster than the economy, returns on risk-taking shrink, capital becomes scarcer and incentives to build something new weaken. Countless entrepreneurs, founders and high-skill workers are already leaving or planning to. What’s the left’s response? They seriously demand a wealth tax. A wealth tax would accelerate that flight. International experience and recent UK analysis show such a levy is fragile, a small number of departures can erase most of the projected yield, while the long-term damage to investment and dynamism is real. Far from solving the fiscal gap, it risks shrinking the tax base. Spending is exploding. Welfare caseloads have swollen by millions since the mid-2010s, „health“-related claims alone rise by roughly a thousand people every working day, and out-of-work benefit numbers now stand near unbelievable 6.7 million. The UK does not have a revenue problem, tax as a share of GDP is already at multi-decade highs and still climbing. It has a spending problem. Restoring a culture in which most people of working age expect to work for a living, rather than depend on an ever-expanding welfare state, is the only sustainable route back to fiscal health and stronger growth. Why is it deemed inappropriate to expect people to work for life?
14
62
6
176
16,952
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
1⃣ Exports to the EU have not fallen by 20%, even in volume terms or as a counterfactual (i.e. relative to what might otherwise have happened). This is due in large part to the continued strength of services exports. Here's the actual data... ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdome…
10
122
3
358
14,689
Catherine McBride OBE retweeted
Britain’s fishing fleet on the brink of collapse. Brexit gave us the perfect opportunity to allow our fishing industry to flourish. Instead traitorous governments sabotaged our fishing industry and gave away huge rights to the EU for nothing. Starmer gave away 12 year permits to EU fisheries for nothing in exchange. Now industry tells Chancellor that high fuel prices ‘pose an existential threat’. “An increasing number of fishing businesses are no longer viable as the cost of taking on fuel for a trip now exceeds what they could hope to earn by selling their catch,” they said. European fishermen receive diesel subsidised under an EU emergency framework for periods of exceptional energy costs. Under the scheme, continental vessels receive rebates of up to €0.35 (30p) per litre. By contrast, UK fishermen must pay open-market rates for red diesel, which can reach up to £1.25 per litre. He said: “With current prices we’ll see the fish caught in British water caught by foreign boats and sold elsewhere. We’ll be paying to re-import our own fish.” Under treacherous post-Brexit trade arrangements, licensed European vessels can still fish in UK waters. This is just the beginning, the crippling net zero charges on fuel are going to threaten the whole of British food production and distribution. Get Labour out. Return the British fishing waters to the British. telegraph.co.uk/business/202…
37
214
13
356
7,477