There is a point at which political explanation becomes political evasion.

Europe is facing an uncomfortable economic reality: weak growth, stubbornly high living costs, rising welfare commitments, declining industrial competitiveness, energy insecurity, demographic pressures and growing political dissatisfaction.

Yet the explanations offered by politicians increasingly seem to arrive pre-packaged.

• Trump is blamed.
• The United States is blamed.
• The war with Iran is blamed.
• Israel is blamed.
• Russia is blamed.
• Brexit is blamed.
• Global markets are blamed.

And, increasingly, extraordinary external events are being used to explain domestic economic problems that have been building for years.

There is truth in some of these arguments. The Middle East conflict has unquestionably created an energy shock. The Bank of England itself says the conflict produced a substantial negative supply shock, with oil, gas and other commodity prices rising sharply. The European Commission has similarly warned that a prolonged energy shock could weaken growth while pushing inflation higher.

But that is not the same thing as saying that Iran created Europe’s economic problems.

It didn’t.

And neither did Donald Trump.

The harder question is whether European governments are willing to examine the policies they control.

The first uncomfortable question: what is actually happening to Britain?

Let’s start with the numbers rather than the politics.

The UK’s latest official CPI inflation rate was 2.6% in June 2026, down from 2.8% in May. That sounds reassuring until the composition of inflation is examined.

• Services inflation was still 3.6%.
• Restaurants and hotels were running at 4.4%.
• Education was 5.1%.
• Communication was 5.2%.
• Transport was 5.7%.

And core CPI — excluding energy, food, alcohol and tobacco — remained at 2.6%.

So yes, headline inflation has fallen.

But the average citizen does not experience an inflation statistic.

• They experience rent.
• Mortgage payments.
• Food.
• Insurance.
• Energy.
• Transport.
• Tax.
• Childcare.
• Healthcare.

And the accumulated increase in the price of virtually everything they have bought over the last several years.

A fall in the inflation rate does not mean prices have fallen.

It means prices are rising more slowly.

That distinction matters enormously.

Can Iran explain Britain’s inflation?

Partly.

It would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

The Bank of England has explicitly identified the Middle East conflict as a major energy shock. In March, oil briefly approached $120 a barrel compared with approximately $64 before the conflict, while natural gas prices also surged. The Bank warned that these energy costs could feed through into fuel, utility bills and wider business costs.

But here’s the problem.

A geopolitical shock can explain a new inflationary impulse.

It cannot explain years of weak productivity, housing shortages, high taxation, expensive energy, public-sector inefficiencies, poor infrastructure investment, rising welfare commitments and declining industrial competitiveness.

Those are domestic policy questions.

And they existed before the latest Middle East conflict.

The political argument should therefore be:

How much of today’s inflation is genuinely external, and how much is the accumulated consequence of domestic policy?

That is a much harder question.

And it is one that deserves an honest answer.

Immigration: the number politicians don’t want to simplify

Immigration is another area where political debate has become almost completely tribal.

• One side says immigration is essential to economic growth.
• The other says immigration is destroying the country.
• Neither statement is sufficiently sophisticated.
• The reality is considerably more complicated.

The latest ONS estimate shows UK long-term net migration at approximately 171,000 in the year ending December 2025, down dramatically from 331,000 in the previous year and from the extraordinary peak of 944,000 in the year ending March 2023.

So anyone claiming that net migration is currently still running at nearly one million people a year would simply be wrong.

But there is another statistic that deserves far more attention.

Approximately 246,000 British nationals left the UK in 2025, while only around 110,000 British nationals arrived.

That produced negative net migration of approximately 136,000 among British nationals.

That does not prove that Britain is experiencing a mass exodus caused by immigration.

It does, however, raise a legitimate economic question.

Why are so many working-age British citizens leaving while Britain continues to depend on international migration to sustain its labour force?

And more importantly:

What happens if a country begins importing labour while exporting some of its own highly mobile working-age population?

That is a question of economic composition, not race or nationality.

Migration can create growth — and still create pressure

There is a major economic mistake on both sides of the immigration debate.

• Migrants can work.
• They can pay taxes.
• They can create businesses.
• They can fill genuine labour shortages.
• They can contribute enormously to an economy.
• But population growth also creates demand.

More people require:

• housing
• healthcare
• schools
• transport
• energy
• water
• public services
• infrastructure

If population growth occurs faster than a country can increase its productive capacity and infrastructure, the result can be significant pressure on housing and public services.

That is basic economics.

And there is a second issue.

The fiscal contribution of migration depends heavily upon who arrives, what they earn, whether they work, how long they stay and what public services they use.

There is no intellectually serious answer to the question:

“Is immigration good or bad for the economy?”

The correct question is:

“Which migration produces a positive fiscal and economic return, and which does not?”

That is the debate governments should be having.

The welfare question: the viral claim is wrong — but the real problem is bigger

There is a statistic frequently circulated in political debate:

“Britain spends as much or more on welfare than it collects in tax.”

That is not correct.

The OBR expects total UK public-sector receipts to reach approximately £1.235 trillion in 2025–26, while total welfare spending is forecast at approximately £332.9 billion.

So welfare spending does not consume the UK’s entire tax take.

But dismissing the issue because the viral statistic is wrong would be equally foolish.

Welfare spending is enormous.

The OBR forecasts it rising from £314.8bn in 2024–25 to £332.9bn in 2025–26, then to approximately £352.8bn in 2026–27 and £406.9bn by 2030–31.

And the composition is particularly important.

The OBR identifies rising pensioner spending and health-related benefits as major drivers of the increase.

It forecasts incapacity caseloads rising from approximately 3.4 million to 4 million between 2024–25 and 2030–31, while disability caseloads are forecast to rise from approximately 6.5 million to 8.8 million.

That is a fiscal problem.

And it is not an immigration statistic.

It is a structural problem.

Britain is becoming an expensive state to operate.

The real question isn’t whether Britain collects enough tax

Britain collects enormous amounts of tax.

The OBR estimates that public-sector receipts represent approximately 40.4% of national income.

Yet the state is still forecast to spend approximately £1.368 trillion in 2025–26, compared with £1.235 trillion of receipts.

That difference matters.

The question is not:

“Are British people paying enough tax?”

They are paying a great deal.

The better question is:

“What are taxpayers receiving for the money being extracted from them?”

That changes the entire debate.

Net Zero: ambition versus economic reality

Europe’s climate ambitions are another area where ideological certainty is increasingly colliding with economic reality.

Decarbonisation is not inherently irrational.

Energy security matters.

Reducing dependence on unstable foreign energy suppliers makes strategic sense.

Investment in renewable technology can create new industries.

But there is a huge difference between decarbonising an economy and deindustrialising an economy in pursuit of a target.

If energy becomes structurally more expensive, energy-intensive industries become less competitive.

• Factories can close.
• Investment can move elsewhere.
• Production can migrate to countries with cheaper energy.
• Jobs disappear.
• The emissions do not necessarily disappear.
• They simply move.

This is the uncomfortable concept of carbon leakage.

Europe can congratulate itself for reducing domestic industrial emissions while importing more of the goods it previously manufactured.

That isn’t necessarily environmental leadership.

It can simply be economic outsourcing.

And then there is Brussels

The European Union remains one of the greatest political and economic achievements of the modern era.

The ability of European nations to trade freely, coordinate regulation and move people and capital across borders has generated enormous economic benefits.

That should not be forgotten.

But defending the European project does not require defending every decision made in Brussels.

The EU now faces a much harder question:

Can a political structure created to facilitate cooperation continue to function if citizens increasingly believe that the institutions governing them no longer reflect their economic interests?

That is not an anti-European question.

It is a profoundly pro-European question.

The European Commission’s own latest forecast paints an uncomfortable picture.

EU GDP growth is forecast at only 1.1% in 2026, while inflation is projected at 3.1%. The Commission also identifies weak competitiveness and public finances as concerns.

That is hardly an economic collapse.

But it is not a picture of an unstoppable economic powerhouse either.

Is Europe facing an existential threat?

That word should be used carefully.

Europe is not facing an existential threat because migrants exist.

Europe is not facing an existential threat because the EU exists.

And Europe is certainly not facing an existential threat simply because Donald Trump is unpopular in Brussels.

The real existential threat would be institutional failure.

If European governments cannot control their borders effectively, maintain public confidence, provide affordable energy, create competitive industries, maintain sustainable welfare systems, retain skilled citizens and deliver economic growth, then something more profound happens.

Citizens stop believing the system works.

That is when political stability becomes fragile.

And that danger exists independently of whether someone votes left, right, liberal, conservative, Labour, CDU, socialist or populist.

The uncomfortable truth about immigration and inflation

There is also a more nuanced economic relationship that needs to be discussed.

Rapid population growth can increase demand for housing, transport, food, energy and services.

If supply cannot expand quickly enough, prices can rise.

But migration can simultaneously increase the supply of labour, expand the productive capacity of an economy and reduce wage pressures in particular sectors.

Therefore, migration is not automatically inflationary.

The question is whether supply expands alongside population.

If governments permit population growth without building enough homes, infrastructure, energy capacity, schools and hospitals, they shouldn’t be surprised when the existing population experiences pressure.

That isn’t xenophobia.

It is capacity planning.

Stop blaming everything on Trump

Trump is a convenient political target for Europe.

So is Israel.

So is Iran.

So is Russia.

So is Brexit.

But governments have a responsibility to distinguish between external shocks and internal failures.

• The Middle East war can increase energy prices.
• Trump can alter trade relationships.
• Russia can disrupt energy markets.
• Global events can absolutely hurt European economies.
• But none of those actors decides Britain’s housing policy.
• None determines Britain’s welfare architecture.
• None determines Britain’s tax structure.
• None determines Britain’s planning system.
• None determines how quickly Britain builds infrastructure.

And none determines whether Europe chooses to make industrial energy affordable or prohibitively expensive.

Those decisions belong to governments.

Hard Talk: ask the questions

Perhaps the greatest problem in Europe today is not that governments are making mistakes.

Governments always make mistakes.

It is that political debate has become so ideological that asking whether a policy has failed can itself become politically unacceptable.

So let’s ask the questions.

Is uncontrolled or poorly managed migration placing excessive pressure on housing and public services?

Does every category of migration generate a positive fiscal return?

Why are significant numbers of British working-age citizens leaving while Britain remains dependent on overseas labour?

Are governments measuring the economic contribution of migrants over their entire fiscal lifetime — or merely counting jobs created?

How much of current inflation is genuinely caused by the Middle East conflict, and how much reflects domestic structural problems?

Has Net Zero policy strengthened European industry — or has it encouraged industrial production to migrate elsewhere?

Can Europe maintain generous welfare systems without significantly increasing taxation, borrowing or economic growth?

Why is welfare spending rising so quickly, particularly health and disability-related spending?

Are European governments sufficiently focused on productivity, manufacturing, energy security and economic competitiveness?

Can the EU maintain public support if citizens believe that border control, economic policy and national sovereignty are increasingly disconnected from their interests?

And perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all:

What happens when the people who create the wealth begin leaving the countries that increasingly depend upon them?

The answer cannot be another political slogan

Europe doesn’t need less truth.

It needs more of it.

It needs governments prepared to say that migration can be economically beneficial and badly managed.

It needs politicians prepared to acknowledge that climate policy can be necessary and economically destructive if implemented without regard to energy costs and industrial competitiveness.

It needs governments capable of admitting that the Middle East conflict can raise inflation without pretending it created every structural weakness in their economies.

And it needs citizens who are prepared to accept that not every problem is caused by someone else.

The EU is worth defending.

European cooperation is worth defending.

Open trade is worth defending.

Energy transition is worth pursuing.

And legitimate humanitarian obligations are worth maintaining.

But none of these objectives should become immune from economic scrutiny.

The measure of a successful government is not the nobility of its intentions.

It is the results it produces.

• Lower living costs.

• Higher productivity.

• Competitive industry.

• Secure energy.

• Sustainable public finances.

• Effective borders.

• Good jobs.

• Rising real incomes.

And a society where the next generation believes it can live better than the previous one.

That is the economic contract.

And if Europe cannot deliver it, blaming Trump, Iran, Israel or anyone else will not change the balance sheet.

Hard Talk isn’t about left versus right.

It is about whether the numbers add up.

Register a Revolut Business Account