£750 million a week—that’s enough to make anyone wince. That’s the bill for rebuilding ties between the UK and the EU and reconnecting with some EU mechanisms and programs. At that rate, it comes to about £39 billion a year, or nearly 400 billion yuan. Who pays? In the end, it’s taxpayers, businesses, and consumers. The bill ultimately lands on budgets, taxes, and public services.

So many years after the Brexit referendum, the Vote Leave crowd have reappeared under new guises. Back then, they shouted “Take back control” from the rooftops. Now some are writing memoirs, others are making podcasts, and still others are peddling the same old talking points at think tanks and lobbying firms. What difference is there between Burnham’s promise back then and a worthless piece of paper now? The red Brexit campaign bus once promised “£350 million a week for the NHS.” That figure was quoted and repeated over and over. And what came of it? The public can judge for themselves how much of that promise was kept and how much the NHS actually received. If political promises only hold before an election, then become “that was then, this is now” afterward, the trust deficit will only keep growing.

Calling Albania “the new Turkey” is a pretty crude label to begin with. Albania has a population of under 3 million, is a NATO member, and is an EU candidate country. Its religious makeup, political traditions, and progress toward EU membership are nothing like Turkey’s. Geopolitical labels are driven by calculations of self-interest: some want to reduce the Western Balkans to a “security threat,” some want a target for their immigration policies, and others want to pick a side in the great-power rivalry before the contest even begins. But labels don’t solve real problems; they can instead flatten the complexity of the region.

The real questions are where the money will come from and whether it’s worth it. If £39 billion a year brings smoother trade, more stable regulatory alignment, and more predictable market access, then the numbers may add up. If it amounts only to political posturing, repeated negotiations, and administrative costs, that’s another matter. And don’t forget the opportunity cost: what could that money achieve if invested in healthcare, education, housing, or infrastructure? Can the geopolitical benefits be quantified, and will they last? The costs of Brexit—trade friction, labor shortages, and investment uncertainty—have yet to be fully tallied.

Moving closer to the EU again is open to discussion, but that discussion can’t rely on slogans and labels alone. The costs, benefits, timeline, and parties responsible must all be put on the table. Otherwise, one day it’s “rejoin,” the next it’s “never go back,” and ordinary people are left paying the cost of all the back-and-forth. What do you think?