Fierce riots are taking place in France, but Emmanuel Macron might have even bigger woes (Image: Daily Express)

France is in the “merde”, in case you hadn’t already noticed. The country is on fire thanks to widespread civil unrest that has led to riots, looting and left historic buildings smouldering.

But while the French are revolting and setting things alight, a far more dangerous firestorm is raging through European financial markets. Emmanuel Macron’s bloated state is facing a catastrophic fiscal reckoning that threatens to plunge the Eurozone into an unprecedented existential crisis. The crucible of this is France’s out-of-control welfare state and an embarrassing lack of economic growth.

France spends an eye-watering sum on state services, with crippling pension commitments eating up immense public resources – such as £20billion out of a £73billion annual education budget spent purely on pensions.

To cover its ballooning deficit and refinance existing obligations, the French government faces raising a staggering £585billion a year.

Bond markets have recoiled in horror. French 10-year government bond yields have surged toward 5%, widening the yield gap against German bonds to levels not seen since the height of the sovereign debt crisis.

Investors simply do not want French debt without a steep risk premium. As the Eurozone’s second-largest economy, France’s tailspin is sending shockwaves across the single-currency bloc.

European banks hold trillions in sovereign debt, reviving fears of a return to a financial “doom loop”. Worse still, France may soon be forced to beg Brussels for a colossal bailout.

But while smaller economies could be rescued during previous crises, France’s sheer scale means it is perilously close to being too big to save.

If Paris demands an emergency lifeline, the EU will face a stark choice. Either Brussels agrees to underwrite French debts – forcing a full fiscal union that turns European taxpayers into perpetual guarantors – or it refuses, leaving its economy effectively kaput.

For Britain, this is a stark reminder of why we were right to leave the EU. While a French financial collapse would inevitably trigger global market tremors worse than 2008, the UK remains protected by holding its own currency, the pound.

Crucially, British taxpayers are not liable for the EU’s colossal mountain of debt. Yet Left-wing politicians continue to argue for dragging Britain back into Brussels’ orbit.

Hitching our wagon to a sinking, slow-growth EU would be utter madness. As France burns and the euro teeters on the brink, Britain’s Brexit freedom is our greatest shield.

France Is on the Brink of Economic Trouble – Why Abandoning Brexit Now Could Be a Risky Gamble for Britain

Britain’s debate over Brexit has returned to the political spotlight as concerns about France’s economic future raise fresh questions about whether closer ties with the European Union would genuinely benefit the United Kingdom. With pressure mounting on European governments to control public spending, stimulate growth and restore confidence in their economies, critics of reversing Brexit argue that Britain should be cautious about embracing a closer relationship with a bloc facing its own serious challenges.

France, one of the European Union’s largest economies, occupies a central position in this debate. Its public finances, political divisions and difficulties agreeing on economic reforms have raised questions about the country’s ability to manage its debt and restore fiscal stability. For British politicians considering closer cooperation with Brussels, developments in France provide a reminder that EU membership or deeper integration cannot automatically solve every economic problem.

However, claims that France is about to collapse should be treated carefully. Economic difficulties are not the same as imminent national bankruptcy, and France remains a major industrial, financial and trading economy. The important question is not whether France is destined to fail, but what its economic challenges reveal about the opportunities and risks facing Britain as it considers its future relationship with Europe.

France Faces a Difficult Economic Challenge

France has spent years grappling with the consequences of high public expenditure, persistent budget deficits and a growing national debt. Government spending supports a substantial welfare state, public services and pension system, but financing these commitments has become increasingly difficult as policymakers attempt to balance social expectations with the need to control borrowing.

The problem is politically sensitive because spending reductions can affect healthcare, pensions, public employment and household incomes. Attempts to reform the system can provoke protests, parliamentary opposition and disputes between political parties.

French governments must therefore confront two competing pressures. They need to reassure financial markets that public finances remain sustainable, while convincing citizens that efforts to reduce the deficit will not place an unfair burden on working families or pensioners.

The difficulty of finding a compromise has contributed to political uncertainty. When governments struggle to secure support for budgets and reforms, businesses may become more cautious about investment, while households may delay major spending decisions.

Nevertheless, France retains considerable economic strengths, including major companies, advanced manufacturing, aerospace, agriculture, tourism and a large domestic market. Its challenges should be understood in that broader context rather than interpreted as proof that the country is on the verge of economic collapse.

For Britain, the lesson is that economic stability depends on sound fiscal management, productive investment and political decisions that can be sustained over time. Those requirements apply regardless of whether a country belongs to the European Union.

Brexit: Would Returning to the EU Solve Britain’s Problems?

The debate has become more urgent following Burnham’s suggestion that Britain should examine a range of options for its long-term relationship with the EU, including the possibility of rejoining. His position has reignited disagreements between supporters of closer European integration and those who believe Brexit should remain the foundation of British economic policy. <Cite refs={[“turn554738search1″,”turn554738search5”]}/>

Those opposed to reversing Brexit argue that France’s difficulties should serve as a warning against assuming that closer integration automatically produces prosperity. They point to the challenges of coordinating economic policy across multiple countries, the political tensions surrounding EU budget rules and the difficulty of reconciling national priorities with shared European commitments.

They also argue that Britain would need to consider the financial and regulatory obligations associated with any return to membership. The terms would have to be negotiated, and there is no guarantee that the UK could simply recover its former arrangements.

However, the opposite argument deserves attention too. Britain’s departure from the EU introduced additional barriers to trade, and the House of Commons Library reports that many economists believe Brexit has left UK economic output lower than it would otherwise have been. Estimates vary considerably, and the precise effect is difficult to isolate from other economic developments. <Cite refs={[“turn554738search3”]}/>

Closer cooperation could therefore offer economic advantages in areas such as food standards, trade, energy and research. The UK government has estimated that agreements involving food and agricultural standards and linking emissions trading systems could add £9 billion to the economy by 2040, although that is a forecast rather than a guaranteed outcome. <Cite refs={[“turn554738search2”]}/>

The question is not simply whether Britain should return to the EU. It is which arrangements would deliver the greatest practical benefits, what obligations they would involve and whether the public would support them.

France’s Crisis Is a Warning, but Not Proof That the EU Is Failing

France’s financial difficulties are substantial. Its public debt is projected to approach 120% of gross domestic product in 2026, while the government faces pressure to reduce a large budget deficit and secure parliamentary support for spending measures. Political uncertainty has also raised concerns among investors about the country’s borrowing costs. <Cite refs={[“turn554738news12″,”turn554738news13”]}/>

These problems matter because France is one of the EU’s largest economies. Prolonged instability could affect European investment, consumer confidence and political cooperation, creating challenges for countries that depend heavily on the European market.

Yet France’s difficulties cannot reasonably be treated as proof that European integration itself is responsible for every economic problem. Domestic spending commitments, political fragmentation, demographic pressures and decisions made by successive French governments all play a role.

The International Monetary Fund has described the French economy as resilient while warning of modest growth, high deficits and mounting spending pressures. That assessment illustrates the difference between a serious fiscal challenge and an imminent economic collapse. <Cite refs={[“turn554738search7”]}/>

Britain must therefore avoid drawing simplistic conclusions. Remaining outside the EU does not guarantee sound public finances, just as membership does not guarantee economic success. The relevant questions concern productivity, investment, public debt, competitiveness and the quality of government decisions.

What Should British Voters Demand From Burnham?

Before making a major change to Britain’s relationship with Europe, voters deserve a clear explanation of what the government wants to achieve.

That explanation should include:

• The expected effect on economic growth, wages, investment and trade.
• The financial contributions and regulatory obligations that different arrangements could require.
• The implications for immigration controls and the movement of workers.
• The potential benefits for British manufacturers, farmers and service industries.
• The consequences for national decision-making and the UK’s ability to negotiate independently with other countries.

The government should also compare several realistic options rather than presenting the debate as a simple choice between complete separation and full EU membership.

A closer trading relationship, participation in selected European programmes or a more extensive agreement would each involve different advantages and trade-offs. The outcome would depend on the terms negotiated with Brussels and the willingness of both sides to compromise.

Burnham should explain those differences openly rather than assume that rejoining would automatically solve Britain’s economic problems.

Conclusion: Britain Needs Caution, Not Panic

France’s financial and political difficulties provide an important reason for Britain to examine its European strategy carefully. High public debt, budget disputes and political uncertainty demonstrate that even major economies can struggle when governments find it difficult to reconcile spending commitments with fiscal realities.

However, France is not on the verge of certain economic collapse, and its difficulties do not prove that reversing Brexit would necessarily be a mistake.

Britain must weigh the potential benefits of closer trade and economic cooperation against the financial, regulatory and political commitments involved. It must also recognise that remaining outside the EU carries its own costs and does not remove the need for sound domestic economic management.

For Burnham, the responsibility is to provide evidence rather than slogans. Any proposal for closer integration should be judged on its likely economic consequences, the terms available to Britain and the democratic support it can command.

The central issue is not whether France’s problems make Brexit right or wrong. It is whether Britain’s next decision will improve living standards, strengthen economic resilience and protect the country’s long-term interests.

That is the standard against which any future European policy should be measured.