No reset would be better than this damaging deal
One might be tempted to say that no reset is better than a bad one. The UK's economic reset with the EU does not produce much in the way of tangible, immediate gains for the UK. It is as much about the direction of travel.
The key to any reset is to ensure it does not tie the UK's hands in future on domestic economic or trade policy. It makes sense to have a sensible and mutually beneficial working relationship with the EU. In this reset, however, the UK will have to both pay and align in return for closer ties.
Brexit was a political event, about democracy, control of our laws and ensuring power remained with UK voters as the EU moves towards ever closer union. I agree with the former governor of the Bank of England, Lord King, who said in an interview: 'It isn't really an economic issue: it's a political issue.'
Both the Prime Minister and EU president described this deal as 'comprehensive'. It is not just about the devil being in the details, but also about what follows. The so-called Common Understanding document accompanying the reset has many references to exploratory talks and references 'dynamic alignment with EU rules' where necessary.
The Government has said it does not plan to rejoin the single market or the customs union. That's important as this will not provide a solution to the UK's economic challenge and should not be part of any pro-growth strategy.
Remaining outside the single market allows the UK regulatory autonomy in key areas of future growth such as artificial intelligence.
Being outside the customs union has allowed the Government to make a trade deal with India, to agree on tariffs with the US, and to reposition the UK in a changing global economy, including having membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The major driver of future growth is the Indo-Pacific, with the EU the slow growth region.
This reset effectively sees the UK join the single market in the area of agricultural products. The post-Brexit border in the Irish Sea should go. The Government expects trade in agriculture to rise, but this will be at the expense of the UK being tied to EU rules.
The SPS agreement, for instance, covers sanitary, phytosanitary, food safety and general consumer protection rules, so effectively the UK will come under EU rules on production, which are widely seen as anti-innovation in agricultural products.
The latter ties UK agriculture's hands in gaining efficiencies with the rest of the world. The ECJ will also oversee areas of dispute.
Unfortunately, one headline-grabbing aspect is the damage it may cause to the UK fishing industry, and it will have a further painful impact on deprived parts of the UK.
The other is UK access to EU defence procurement. This could be positive, but the details and cost still need to be clarified. Seeking improved defence and security ties is understandable as the changing global landscape of geo-economics has led to national security being alongside economic prosperity in policy making.
Access to the EU energy market and emissions trading schemes is also to be explored, but again with a cost and realignment.
The reset should allow scope to address areas that, with better negotiation, should not have been in the original deal. Access to e-gates at passport control now faces 'no legal barriers', but their use is unclear. The UK wanted to address the ability of UK artists to tour, but this has not been resolved.
Youth mobility is the big unknown out of this reset. Few would want to deny opportunities to UK young people, although previously these were limited by language issues and the lack of jobs in the EU.
The genuine worry is the UK's tendency to underestimate badly how many people may wish to come, given our dynamic labour market and free health system and the high numbers of young people with EU residency permits.
The major challenges facing the UK have long predated Brexit and solutions are not reliant on being in the EU. The UK's investment shortfall dates to the 1970s, its trade deficit problem to the mid-1980s, and regional imbalances have persisted for some time.
Germany's recent recession, Italy's stagnation and France's weak growth are not blamed on Brexit, and with Britain being hit by the same global influences, our sluggish growth should not be either.
The doppelgängers that some have used to suggest we would have grown faster within the EU have been shown to be flawed, with the comparator groups changing within and across economic variables.
The inability of British politicians to articulate a coherent vision and deliver a properly thought-out economic policy have allowed figures vehemently opposed to Brexit to define the debate and helped to create an economically damaging narrative about the UK on the global stage.
While some politicians wrongly presented Brexit as transforming the country's fortunes overnight, we are still better placed to pursue a reforming, pro-growth agenda from outside the EU.
Making maximum use of the competencies that have returned to Westminster in recent years remains an opportunity, before we seek to give them away in a reset without them being used.
Though this need not necessarily rule out dynamic alignment in a few sectors, the UK needs to focus on the domestic policy levers that can be pulled to boost competitiveness.
Gerard Lyons is a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Business of Fashion
18 minutes ago
- Business of Fashion
Lead EU lawmaker on sustainability laws proposes more cuts
The European Union should further slash the number of companies subject to its environmental and corporate sustainability rules, the European Parliament member leading negotiations on the policies said on Thursday. The European Commission proposed a 'simplification omnibus' in February that it said would help European firms compete with foreign rivals by cutting back on sustainability reporting rules and obligations intended to root out abuses in their supply chains. Those proposals did not go far enough, according to Swedish centre-right lawmaker Jörgen Warborn, who has drafted amendments to scale back the laws further to only cover companies with 3,000 employees or more and over 450 million euros ($521 million) in turnover. The Commission proposal would exempt companies with fewer than 1,000 employees - already, cutting out more than 80 percent of the roughly 50,000 companies currently covered by the green reporting rules. The EU counts around 6,000 companies with more than 1,000 employees. 'Europe is falling behind the US and China in the global race for competitiveness. I'm entering this process with a clear ambition: to cut costs for businesses and go further than the Commission on simplification,' Warborn said in a statement on Thursday. His draft proposal must be negotiated in the European Parliament where other lawmakers can propose their own amendments. The Parliament will agree the final changes with EU member countries in the coming months. Warborn, a member of the centre-right European People's Party lawmaker group, is facing competing calls from some right-wing lawmakers to scrap the policies entirely, and Socialist and Green lawmakers vowing to preserve them. French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Friedrich Merz have both demanded the EU scrap the supply chain law. But the walk-back on ESG rules has met resistance from some investors and campaigners, who have warned it weakens corporate accountability and hurts the bloc's ability to attract more investments towards meeting climate goals. Warborn said his proposed changes will not weaken Europe's sustainability standards, but rather free up resources that companies can instead invest in innovation. By Kate Abnett; Editor: Joe Bavier Learn more: Op-Ed | Dear Fashion CEOs, Stop Undermining Climate Action Too many brands have set ambitious emissions goals while their trade associations quietly work to block the regulations needed to achieve them, argues Maxine Bédat.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's next for DOGE after Trump's alliance with Musk collapsed
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump says the work of the Department of Government Efficiency is "not finished at all" after his relationship Elon Musk blew up in spectacular fashion. Yet whether the government-slashing DOGE will pack the same punch now that the world's richest man not only left the White House, but turned on Trump in an epic public battle, is unclear. The future of DOGE was already in limbo after Musk's four-month run as the chainsaw-wielding DOGE leader ended, especially because several other top DOGE officials exited the Trump administration alongside Musk. But then came Musk's war of words last week with Trump that ended their political alliance. Here's what we know about DOGE's direction in a post-Musk White House: In the aftermath of their fallout, Trump signaled that he's ready to move on from the Musk fight but not DOGE itself. The president told reporters on June 6 he's "not thinking about Elon" and has no plans to ask him to return his honorary White House key. Trump added on June 9 that he's not getting rid of the red Tesla car he bought from Musk ‒ but "may move the Tesla around a little bit" ‒ and said he won't ditch Musk's Starlink internet service that was installed at the White House. More: Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill Trump declined to take a shot at Musk when asked about the former White House adviser's alleged drug use and whether he believed Musk used drugs at the White House. "I really don't know. I don't think so. I hope not," Trump said. "We had a good relationship and I just wish him well ‒ very well actually." For his part, Musk appeared to take back some of his harshest attacks, deleting a post he made on X endorsing Trump's impeachment and another alleging Trump is mentioned in undisclosed classified files related to the financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump reiterated that in the wake of recent departures, the work of DOGE, which has executed widespread cuts throughout the federal government, isn't over. "We saved hundreds of billions of dollars ‒ it's terrific. And it's going further," Trump told reporters on Air Force One on June 6. More: Elon Musk's rise and fall: From Trump's chainsaw-wielding sidekick to a swift exit For four months, DOGE rapidly fanned throughout the federal government, seizing control of information technology infrastructure, axing federal government contracts, gutting the U.S. Agency for International Development and pushing out or firing tens of thousands of federal employees. DOGE is set to continue operations until the summer of 2026 under an executive order Trump signed in January. But without Musk, the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, at the helm, it's unclear if DOGE will operate with the same slash-and-burn aggressiveness. At its peak, the quasi-official agency employed more than 100 computer engineers, budget analysts and other staffers ‒ some working at the group's offices at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus and others inside various agencies and departments. More: Elon Musk escalates feud with Trump: 'Time to drop the really big bomb' Among the other top DOGE employees to follow were Steve Davis, Musk's top lieutenant who oversaw DOGE's day-to-day operations, publicist Katie Miller and DOGE's top attorney James Burnham. Miller, the wife of top White House aide Stephen Miller, has continued to work for Musk. Musk's exit as the DOGE leader came as his designation as a "special government employee" ‒ which allowed him to stay on the job for 130 calendar days a year ‒ ended. Others in DOGE's top brass were working under the same structure. Before Musk began to criticize Trump's tax and policy megabill publicly, he asked for his special government employee status to be extended beyond 130 days to allow him to continue to lead DOGE, but the White House declined, a source told USA TODAY. The White House has said no individual person will replace Musk, noting that several DOGE employees have "onboarded" as political appointees at the various agencies they've worked to overhaul. 'The mission of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse is a part of the DNA of the federal government," Harrison Fields, White House deputy press secretary, said in a statement to USA TODAY, "and will continue under the direction of the President, his Cabinet, and agency heads to enhance government efficiency and prioritize responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars." Russ Vought, Trump's director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, has started to fill Musk's void as the top Trump official carrying out DOGE's stated mission of cutting government "waste, fraud and abuse." Vought, who also led OMB in Trump's first term, wrote the chapter on executive power in Project 2025, the controversial policy blueprint created by the conservative Heritage Foundation that Trump distanced himself from during the 2024 campaign. Vought uses a lot of the same language as Musk, writing in Project 2025 that the goal should be to "bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will." Vought, however, isn't calling himself the DOGE leader. Appearing June 4 before the House Appropriations Committee, Vought said the "Cabinet agencies that are in charge of the DOGE consultants that work for them are fundamentally in control of DOGE." Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisconsin, wasn't pleased with Vought's answer. "Oh, that's an answer only a mother could love," he said. Leading up to the Trump-Musk breakup, the business mogul started leveling criticism over the trillions of dollars that Trump's massive tax and spending bill is projected to add to the deficit. In an appeal to Republican fiscal hawks, the White House and House Speaker Mike Johnson have said they want to codify the DOGE cuts, beginning this week when they hope to formally claw back $9.4 billion in spending. More: President Trump threatens Elon Musk's billions in government contracts as alliance craters The rescissions package, set for a House vote on June 12, will include $8.3 billion in cuts to foreign aid and $1.1 billion from public broadcasting funds, including for NPR and PBS. Republican leadership is bullish that they can get the package quickly passed. They have 45 days to approve it, and it only requires a majority vote in the Senate. But it may not be so simple: Several lawmakers have concerns with the rollback of a Bush-era program to support AIDS prevention and with the impact on rural communities that rely on public media for information. Vought has said future legislative packages to enact DOGE cuts could come later if the initial rescissions package passes. Musk left the White House after falling vastly short of his ambitious cost-savings goal for the federal government. Musk had set a goal for DOGE to cut $1 trillion from the federal government by the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. He had even talked about $2 trillion in cuts on the 2024 campaign trail when he stumped for Trump. More: 'Elon is going to get decimated:' How Trump's feud with the world's richest man might end But DOGE's savings total posted on its website currently stands at $180 billion, which doesn't amount to even 20% of $1 trillion. And this does not even factor in potential exaggerations or errors in DOGE's calculations, which have been a recurring theme in the group's declared savings. "I did not find the federal government to be rife with waste, fraud and abuse. I was expecting some more easy wins," Sahil Lavingia, a former DOGE engineer, said in an interview with National Public Radio. Lavingia added that he believed DOGE had produced many examples of government "waste" but disagreed that DOGE uncovered mountains of "fraud and abuse" as Musk claimed. "The government has been under sort of a magnifying glass for decades," Lavingia said. "And so I think, generally, I personally was pretty surprised, actually, at how efficient the government was. This isn't to say that it can't be made more efficient." Before he left, Musk said DOGE's next focus will be on fixing the federal government's aging computer systems ‒ something far less controversial than taking a battering ram to the federal workforce. In the meantime, some federal agencies and departments are doing cleanup work to repatch holes left by the mass exodus of federal worker departures steered by DOGE. The National Science Foundation said it was reinstating several dozen employees following a May federal court ruling that found the mass cuts by DOGE were unlawfully forced by the Office of Personnel Management. The Washington Post reported that several agencies, including the IRS, Food and Drug Administration, and even USAID, are also scrambling to rehire many of the probationary employees fired under DOGE's direction and bring back longtime federal workers who accepted voluntary buyouts. Contributing: Riley Beggin Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What's next for DOGE after Trump-Musk alliance collapse


Washington Post
33 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump miscalculated on China. Now the administration is trying to fix the mess.
President Donald Trump started his world wide trade war with what appeared to be a strong hand. China's economy, in particular, seemed vulnerable as it struggled through a real estate crisis and governmental mismanagement. Beijing would have to deal on terms favorable to the United States. U.S.-China trade talks this week, however, confirmed this was a miscalculation. Though Trump hailed the results of the summit, held in London, as a new trade deal, the terms largely echoed those of an earlier U.S.-China agreement in Geneva last month, the implementation of which China had slow-walked. Beijing's capacity to force economic pain on its people is hardly unlimited; popular outcry over strict pandemic-era restrictions eventually forced the government to relax them. But 'eventually' is the key word. Ending the suffering will now require serious dealing on both sides.