作者： admin

In a move that has sent ripples through global diplomatic circles, United States Vice-President JD Vance made an unexpected and under-the-radar trip to a high-end Swiss alpine resort to hold direct talks with Iranian representatives, a development that has sparked widespread curiosity and analysis from international observers. BBC senior correspondent Jessica Parker has broken down the critical context and key takeaways surrounding this unorthodox diplomatic encounter, shedding light on what many see as a significant shift in how the US is engaging with Iran behind closed doors.

First, it is important to contextualize the long-strained diplomatic relationship between Washington and Tehran. For decades, formal direct negotiations between the two nations have been rare, with most talks mediated by third-party European or global powers in established diplomatic settings. The choice of a remote, luxury Swiss resort – a location long favored for secret, off-the-record diplomatic negotiations due to Switzerland’s long-standing policy of neutrality and strict privacy protections – was no accident. The secluded setting allowed both sides to speak freely without the immediate pressure of global media scrutiny or domestic political backlash that often derails early diplomatic efforts.

Parker notes that while the Biden administration has maintained limited, structured talks with Iran over its nuclear program in recent years, this meeting involving the sitting US vice-president marks a notable escalation in direct engagement. While official statements from both sides have remained scarce, early reports indicate that discussions covered a range of pressing topics, including ongoing nuclear enrichment activities, regional security tensions in the Middle East, and the potential for limited prisoner exchanges that have long been a sticking point in bilateral relations.

Diplomatic analysts suggest the off-the-record nature of the meeting indicates that both sides are testing the waters for more formal negotiations down the line, rather than pushing for immediate, sweeping agreements. The choice of venue also reinforces Switzerland’s historic role as a neutral intermediary between hostile nations, a function it has fulfilled for decades during periods of global geopolitical tension. As details continue to emerge, the international community is closely watching to see whether this informal encounter will open the door to a broader thaw in US-Iran relations, or remain a one-off exploratory meeting with no long-term policy impact.

Ten years to the day after the United Kingdom’s fateful 52%-48% vote to leave the European Union, the seismic ripple effects of that decision continue to reshape British politics, bringing the country its seventh prime minister since the 2016 referendum and leaving a legacy of division, economic stagnation and eroded public trust.

On June 23, 2016, after 47 years of EU membership, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron gambled on a public referendum to settle internal party tensions over Europe, campaigning to remain in the bloc. When results favored exit, Cameron resigned within 24 hours, opening a decade of political chaos that no successive leader has managed to resolve. The latest casualty is Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who announced his resignation Monday after two years in office, pointing to a sluggish economy, dysfunctional governing institutions and a deeply divided, disillusioned electorate — problems widely traced at least in part to Brexit’s ongoing fallout.

The 2016 Leave campaign capitalized on broad public discontent with the status quo, selling Brexit with the emotional rallying cry of “take back control” over British laws, borders and economic policy. Leading Leave figure Boris Johnson, who would later become prime minister, framed the exit as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to embrace a brighter, independent future, telling supporters just weeks before the vote: “We can see the sunlit meadows beyond. I believe we would be mad not to take this once-in-a-lifetime chance to walk through that door.”

Historians trace the Leave victory to a tangled mix of grievances: opposition to perceived unrestricted immigration, anger at Brussels-imposed regulations, and a powerful strain of nostalgia for an imagined, glorified British past. Margaret MacMillan, emeritus history professor at the University of Toronto, noted that Leave campaigners never clearly articulated what Brexit would actually deliver, leaning instead on vague nationalist sentiment. “It was against what people saw as unrestricted immigration. It was against what they saw as EU regulations. And then there was this mix of nostalgia — ‘We fought alone in the Second World War.’ Which was of course not true,” MacMillan explained.

That lack of clarity set the stage for years of unmet promises and political turmoil. Bold Leave pledges of tighter immigration controls, lucrative independent trade deals, increased funding for public services and an end to burdensome European regulation quickly collided with hard reality. The U.K. did not formally complete its exit until January 31, 2020, following years of acrimonious divorce negotiations with the EU, and an 11-month transition period before the final split was cemented.

Cameron’s successor, Theresa May, stepped down in 2019 after failing to secure exit terms that could win approval from a deeply divided Parliament. Johnson took over, promising to “get Brexit done” and ultimately negotiated a slim trade deal that left U.K.-EU relations strained and frozen for years. He was forced out of office by the Conservative Party in mid-2022 amid overlapping financial and ethical scandals. His replacement Liz Truss resigned after just 49 days in office following a disastrous economic agenda that crashed global markets. Next came Rishi Sunak, who eased tensions with Brussels but declined to make major structural changes to the Brexit framework. Starmer, who won power after Sunak, promised a “reset” of Brexit policy but also ruled out returning to the EU’s tariff-free, frictionless single market. Now, as Starmer prepares to hand over power, Brexit remains unresolved, lingering as un finished business for the country.

Far from settling long-running intra-party tensions over Europe, as Cameron hoped it would, the referendum shattered Britain’s traditional political ecosystem. “The people who obsessed about it still obsess about it. Britain’s problems have continued,” historian Anthony Seldon told Times Radio. Within the Conservative Party, hardline Brexiteers pushed out moderate lawmakers who favored a softer exit and closer EU ties. Even the traditionally pro-EU Labour Party has been split, with grassroots members pushing for closer alignment or even full rejoin, while senior leaders like Starmer have refused to reopen debate over the 2016 decision to avoid reigniting old conflicts.

A decade on, millions of voters have abandoned Britain’s two major mainstream parties for smaller, more extreme alternatives. The biggest political beneficiary has been Nigel Farage, the long-time Brexit campaigner who now leads the hard-right Reform UK. After campaigning for exit, Farage shifted to claiming Brexit had been betrayed by mainstream politicians, reorienting his anti-immigration message from EU free movement to targeting asylum seekers crossing the English Channel in small boats. Today, Reform UK consistently leads national opinion polls.

Economically, Britain has seen a decade of sluggish growth, with new trade barriers between the U.K. and its closest European neighbor hitting business activity. While Brexit is not the sole cause of slow growth — the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine war and ongoing Middle East conflicts have all contributed — experts agree Brexit has amplified existing economic pressures. Compounding this, successive leaders have avoided being honest with the public about the trade-offs required by Brexit, leaving voters deeply disappointed.

“ We just haven’t had politicians who’ve been upfront with the public about the fact that when they get into power, they won’t be able to have no increases in taxes, no increases in debt, and better public services all in the same breath,” said Hannah White, director of the independent Institute for Government think tank. “And so people are disappointed.”

Ironically, Brexit also failed to resolve the immigration debate it centered. Net migration to the U.K. hit a record high of more than 900,000 in 2023 before falling to 71,000 last year, and public debate over immigration has only grown more polarised. That polarisation has fueled rising public cynicism, collapsed trust in political institutions, and even eroded long-held British norms against political violence. Agitators have repeatedly incited anti-immigration street violence after crimes committed by — or falsely rumoured to be committed by — immigrants.

Chris Grey, an academic who has extensively studied Brexit’s fallout, noted that a long-standing line between peaceful political debate and street violence has eroded, a shift that traces its origins to the 2016 referendum. “In the past, Britain had a firm barrier between the conventional dominant politics of talk and argument, and what was seen as beyond the pale: violence on the streets,” Grey said. “I think that boundary is being eroded. And I think that did to some large extent begin with Brexit.”

Today, polling shows growing “Bregret” among British voters, with a recent Ipsos survey finding 52% of respondents now support rejoining the EU, compared to just 33% who oppose it. Hundreds of pro-rejoin activists marched through London Saturday, waving EU blue-and-yellow flags, though turnout was far smaller than the mass protests seen at the height of Brexit negotiations. Most voters now say they simply want to move on from the debate.

Even so, Brexit remains a political minefield that most leaders are afraid to address. And if Britain wanted to reverse course and rejoin the bloc, it would face a long, difficult negotiation with a deeply wary EU. Until British politicians are willing to confront Brexit’s full legacy, Grey said the country will remain stuck in a cycle of persistent low-grade crisis. He compared the U.K. to a person living with a chronic, energy-sapping illness that they refuse to get treated.

“A chronic thing, in this case perhaps not incurable,” Grey said. “But it’s just that they don’t fancy going to the doctor because they know it’s not going to be very nice.”

LONDON – It is one of the most dramatic political reversals in modern British history: Keir Starmer, who led the Labour Party to a landslide general election victory in 2024 that ended 14 years of Conservative rule, announced his resignation as prime minister on Monday, forced out by a party rebellion triggered by catastrophic local election losses. His premiership lasted less than two years, unraveled by a toxic mix of economic stagnation, repeated policy missteps, a damaging controversial appointment, and widespread voter disillusionment over his perceived lack of a clear governing vision.

Starmer’s political rise reached its peak on July 4, 2024, when Labour secured a commanding majority of 411 seats out of 650 in Parliament, a stunning turnaround from the party’s historic defeat in the previous general election. The victory ushered in a wave of national optimism, as Starmer positioned his government as a champion of working-class Britons drained by years of Conservative governance. In his triumphant victory speech, Starmer framed the win as a new beginning for the United Kingdom, saying, “Walk into the morning, the sunlight of hope, pale at first but getting stronger through the day, shining once again, on a country with the opportunity after 14 years to get its future back.” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood even praised Starmer for pulling the party “from the brink, back to power.”

That optimism faded far faster than even Starmer’s most vocal critics predicted. The new prime minister inherited an economy already reeling from the lingering fiscal damage of the COVID-19 pandemic and the inflationary shock of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, leaving his government with little fiscal room for large popular spending programs. Voters had ousted the Conservatives over soaring household costs, but Starmer and Treasury chief Rachel Reeves stumbled early: their overly downbeat public assessments of the country’s economic situation eroded consumer and business confidence, prompting widespread spending cuts and hiring freezes that deepened economic stagnation.

Policy missteps compounded the economic damage. Bound by an election manifesto pledge to rule out increases to income tax and value-added tax—the government’s two largest revenue sources—Starmer’s administration instead raised payroll taxes on businesses. The change was deeply unpopular, pushing countless companies to scale back hiring plans and worsening already elevated unemployment levels. This misstep was followed by a string of embarrassing policy U-turns that eroded public trust and gave opposition parties ample ammunition to claim Starmer lacked core convictions. The government was forced to backtrack on plans to cut winter home heating subsidies for millions of pensioners, reverse proposed deep cuts to welfare spending, and weaken a new agricultural inheritance tax after thousands of angry farmers blockaded central London with tractors. Even outside of economic policy, Starmer flipped positions on high-profile issues, most notably launching a national inquiry into organized child sexual abuse only after sustained pressure from opposition figures and billionaire Elon Musk.

The most damaging blow to Starmer’s credibility came from his fateful decision to appoint veteran Labour figure Peter Mandelson—an open friend of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein—as British ambassador to the United States. Initially, the pick was hailed as a shrewd strategic move: Mandelson, long nicknamed the “Prince of Darkness” for his hard-nosed political tactics, had deep trade experience and established relationships with U.S. business and political leaders, including then-President Donald Trump. His efforts ultimately delivered a bilateral trade deal with lower tariffs for Britain than most observers expected. But the appointment unraveled in September 2025, when new documents revealed Mandelson had been far closer to Epstein than he had publicly disclosed. Further revelations compounded the scandal: internal government records showed Mandelson had been flagged as a “reputational risk” before his appointment, failed a mandatory security background check, and was under investigation for allegedly passing sensitive cabinet information to Epstein more than 15 years earlier. Starmer ultimately fired Mandelson, but the scandal left his political judgment permanently in question. Mandelson has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing.

The final collapse came this spring, when Starmer’s already plummeting popularity translated into a devastating rout for Labour in local elections across the country. The far-right, anti-immigration Reform UK party won the largest share of local seats, while the rising Green Party pulled large numbers of left-leaning voters away from Labour. In the wake of the losses, more than 100 Labour members of Parliament publicly called for Starmer to step down. Several senior cabinet ministers, including popular Health Secretary Wes Streeting, resigned in protest, fueling speculation that Streeting would launch a leadership challenge. Popular Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, another potential challenger, returned to Parliament after a sitting MP stepped down to clear his path to a leadership bid. When Burnham won the resulting by-election last week, the writing was on the wall for Starmer.

After holing up at Chequers, the prime minister’s official country residence, over the weekend to weigh his options, an emotional Starmer announced his resignation Monday morning. Burnham was sworn in as prime minister later the same day in the House of Commons, where he received a rapturous welcome from Labour MPs. Labour’s national executive committee will open nominations for a permanent party leader on July 9, and it remains unclear whether any other candidates will step forward to challenge Burnham for the permanent role.