The £25bn-a-year prize at stake in Starmer's Brexit reset talks with EU
A £25bn annual boost to British exports is at stake for Sir Keir Starmer as he tries to secure a Brexit reset deal at a crucial summit on Monday, analysis shared with The Independent reveals.
Removing trade barriers on goods, including food and drink and electrical items, could result in a 2.2 per cent uplift in gross domestic product in the long run, boosting the economic growth the prime minister so desperately wants to deliver, financial analysts Frontier Economics found.
And a separate assessment by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) warns that a failure to land a deal for easier trading could lead to a 2.7 per cent drop in exports by 2027, costing the UK economy almost £30bn.
The impact on the British economy from such a deal is expected to dwarf that of the agreements recently signed with India and the US.
Gordon Brown's former economic adviser Lord Jim O'Neill summed up the importance of Sir Keir's summit in London: 'Obviously, the closer and more serious we can get, the better it is for reversing our net trade losses, and importantly, net investment from EU areas.
'Given the shock from Trump [tariffs] to Europe, especially on Germany, on top of the Ukraine shock and China slowdown, I think Germany [will be] more open to pro-UK trade issues than before.
'Also, I suspect the EU is going to give more than lip service to cross-border services sector reform now. Given UK net advantages in service sector exports, this is important to us.'
Such reforms could make it easier for the UK to sell services to the bloc by allowing mutual recognition of qualifications so UK professionals can practice in the EU and vice versa without having a retrain.
NIESR's interim director Stephen Millard said the value of Monday's deal should not be underestimated.
He said: 'In 2024 we exported roughly £6.5 billion to India, roughly £53.5 billion to the United States and roughly £159 billion to the European Union. It is fairly clear from those numbers that a trade deal with the European Union is much more likely to shift the dial than the deals with India and the United States.'
His assessment was echoed by Chris Southworth, director general of the UK's largest business organisation, the International Chambers of Commerce (ICC), who noted that the trade deal signed with Donald Trump, that saw tariffs slashed on UK car and steel exports, was a 'damage limitation agreement' and only accounted for 13 per cent of international Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
But he fears the deal to be unveiled on Monday 'may not be ambitious enough' especially if it only focuses on goods rather than the future growth areas of digital services.
It is a view shared by the Labour chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee Dame Emily Thornberry.
In an interview with The Independent, she called on Sir Keir to be more 'courageous', adding: 'We should be going further than the government currently seems to have the ambition for doing.'
The deal is expected to include closer defence cooperation, goods and services, and a youth mobility agreement, that would allow 18 to 30 year olds to live and work in the UK and Europe for a time-limited period.
Two immediate big wins could be to include the UK in the €150bn EU defence procurement fund, which would allow the government to bid for military equipment contracts and, invite them to join the EU data hub. The latter is being championed by Poland who currently have the presidency of the EU.
A special report from earlier this year found that Brexit had cost the UK £30.2bn in settlement costs, stopped 16,400 businesses from exporting to the EU, and could lead to a 15 per cent long-term loss of trade.
From the £24.8bn export boost for the UK estimated by Frontier Economics in a report commissioned by pro-EU group Best for Britain, farm food exports alone could see a £3.2bn increase.
Agricultural exports have suffered since Brexit, with food and drink exports down by more than a third, according to trade bodies.
The EU, meanwhile, would also benefit; with a £22.4bn boost to exports in goods and services from a closer agreement, selling £5bn more in agricultural products.
Amar Breckenridge, senior associate at Frontier Economist said that some of the economic damage caused by President Trump's tariffs could be offset by the benefits of a closer EU trading relationship.
While tariffs could still cost the UK £4.3bn in GDP under the new US trade deal, Mr Breckenridge's estimated the UK could claw back £8.1bn from closer trading with the EU.
The long-awaited youth mobility scheme alone could boost GDP by 0.45 per cent in the next decade, according to a separate study from the Centre for European Reform. But recent reports suggest that the deal might hit speed bumps in a row over high student fees for EU students coming to the UK, in addition to a lack of flexibility over amount of fish EU countries can take from British waters.
On youth mobility, John Springford, associate fellow at the Centre for European Reform, noted: 'The youth mobility scheme would raise GDP by bringing more young EU workers into the UK labour force - although the final numbers will depend on how many are allowed to come and how long they can stay for.'
Introducing it could amount to 31,000 more young people a year coming to the UK at the highest end, which would mean more people working and contributing to the economy.
But EU officials want lower fees for their students, according to reports, which is causing tension ahead of Monday's talks. International students currently pay around £12,000 more in fees on average a year than domestic students.
The number of EU students at UK universities has dropped to nearly half since Brexit, with 75,000 EU nationals enrolled in British colleges and universities in the 2023/24 academic year - down from 148,000 in 2019.
The Independent estimates that UK universities generate around £1bn a year in extra fees from EU students, which is likely why the government is facing domestic pushback over lowering fees.
Lowering fees would have a positive impact because EU students spend around £61,000 here over the course of their studies, research from London School of Economics found, on top of their tuition fees.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why FMC Technologies (FTI) is a Top Value Stock for the Long-Term
Taking full advantage of the stock market and investing with confidence are common goals for new and old investors alike. Achieving those goals is made easier with the Zacks Style Scores, a unique set of guidelines that rates stocks based on popular investing methodologies, namely value, growth, and momentum. The Style Scores can help you narrow down which stocks are better for your portfolio and which ones can beat the market over the long-term. Finding good stocks at good prices, and discovering which companies are trading under their true value, are what value investors like to focus on. So, the Value Style Score takes into account ratios like P/E, PEG, Price/Sales, and Price/Cash Flow to highlight the most attractive and discounted stocks. London-based TechnipFMC plc is a leading manufacturer and supplier of products, services and fully integrated technology solutions for the energy industry. The company, which reached its current form following the January 2017 merger between Technip and FMC Technologies, is engaged in the designing, producing and servicing technologically sophisticated systems and products for subsea, onshore/offshore, and surface projects. The company strives to enhance the performance of its oil and gas clients by bringing together the scope and know-how to transform the project economics. FTI is a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) stock, with a Value Style Score of B and VGM Score of A. Shares are currently trading at a forward P/E of 15.4X for the current fiscal year compared to the Oil and Gas - Field Services industry's P/E of 15.4X. Additionally, FTI has a PEG Ratio of 1.1 and a Price/Cash Flow ratio of 11.3X. Value investors should also note FTI's Price/Sales ratio of 1.4X. A company's earnings performance is important for value investors as well. For fiscal 2025, eight analysts revised their earnings estimate higher in the last 60 days for FTI, while the Zacks Consensus Estimate has increased $0.01 to $2.06 per share. FTI also holds an average earnings surprise of 37.2%. Investors should take the time to consider FTI for their portfolios due to its solid Zacks Ranks, notable earnings and valuation metrics, and impressive Value and VGM Style Scores. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report TechnipFMC plc (FTI) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hamas is the cause of Gaza's predicament
The situation in Gaza is 'intolerable and appalling', the Prime Minister told MPs. Whose fault is that? Sir Keir Starmer laid the blame at Israel's door, whereas just a few months ago culpability would have been attached to Hamas. The terror group has got precisely what it wanted: international opinion has turned against Israel and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu must take steps to make sure they are not aiding and abetting this. He and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) must avoid turning a just cause – the defence of their homeland from the murderous predations of its enemies – into a diplomatic coup for the perpetrators. Hamas thinks nothing of using hospitals, schools or other civilian buildings to house its command posts, knowing they will be targeted by the IDF seeking to extirpate the group's command structure. Inevitably civilians are killed, but the terrorist group considers them expendable. Now, Hamas is using the efforts to bring humanitarian aid to Palestinians to further its media campaign against Israel. It is no longer able to control the delivery of food and other emergency supply because Jerusalem has cut the United Nations out of the loop. The reason for this is that when the UN ran the convoys they were intercepted by Hamas which then sold the goods at marked up prices. Israel's attempts to stop this has led to riots at aid posts, with the IDF firing on queues. This is reported by the BBC with little in the way of context. Of course, it is appalling to see civilians die in these circumstances and a ceasefire deal on terms set out by the US – accepted by Israel but rejected by Hamas – would be the best way forward. But such an outcome is increasingly difficult to achieve when the BBC's narrative that Israel is always in the wrong permeates into the political discourse. The Trump administration has criticised the Corporation for accepting Hamas's word at face value, something BBC chiefs deny. Israel is also furious with what it considers to be biased reporting. The BBC invariably reports the worst of Israel, only to add the caveat that it cannot verify reports because it is denied access to Gaza. This makes it naively vulnerable to Hamas propaganda, which it seems all too ready to swallow. There is a way around this, which is for Israel to lift its ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza independently to let them see for themselves. 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.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Starmer's defence pledges are all smoke and mirrors
Three words sum up the hollowness of Sir Keir Starmer's bold pledge to make the UK's Armed Forces 'battle ready' in the wake of the latest defence review. They have nothing to do with enhancing the defence of the realm. Time and again the ambitious programme, set out in the 144-page report, to revitalise our military after more than a decade of woeful decline is undermined by the catch-all caveat 'when funding allows'. Thus, while the review concedes that the Army, which is now smaller than at any time since the Napoleonic Wars, could do with increasing its manpower, the modest uplift proposed by the review will only be implemented if the relevant funds become available. The procurement of other equipment deemed vital to safeguarding our national defence is subjected to the same budgetary constraints. While the review argues that the previous government's decision to cut the number of operational E-7 early warning and control aircraft from five to three needs to be reversed, this, too, will only happen 'when funding allows'. Boeing's E-7 Wedgetail aircraft are deemed to be a vital component in controlling the battlespace during armed conflict with their advanced radar systems, and would be a vital asset in the event of war breaking out with a hostile country like Russia. Yet, despite the review issuing a dire warning about the worsening 'geopolitical context', there is a distinct lack of urgency about the Government's claim to make the country an 'armour-clad nation'. So, when Starmer talks, as he did when announcing the conclusions of Labour's Strategic Defence Review, about making Britain 'safer and stronger', the truth is that he is simply indulging in wishful thinking. This is a Prime Minister who, only a few weeks ago, was talking enthusiastically about putting British boots on the ground in Ukraine as part of his 'coalition of the willing'. But he knew full well that the UK does not have the military resources necessary to sustain such a mission. Starmer's bold plan to dispatch a European 'reassurance' force to Ukraine has now been quietly watered down to a more realistic support mission for the Ukrainian military. The Starmer's empty rhetoric regarding his grand ambitions for the defence review is likely to suffer a similar fate. It will inevitably become clear that, despite his boast that he is overseeing 'the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War', the actual funding being made available is negligible. Starmer's smoke and mirrors defence pledges are part of a long and undistinguished tradition of British governments making ambitious spending commitments for the Armed Forces they have absolutely no chance of fulfilling. Former Conservative chancellor George Osborne, for example, made much political capital out of his claim that he had raised defence spending above the minimum 2 per cent of GDP level required by Nato. Closer examination of the figures showed this could only be met by 'efficiency savings' in defence spending that were unachievable. It was the same with Rishi Sunak's pledge last year to raise UK defence spending to 2.5 per cent. The move was immediately compromised by the qualification that such an increase would only be possible 'as soon as the economic conditions allow'. Starmer's policy of over-promising and under-delivering on defence spending is very much in this dishonourable tradition. But the Prime Minister's difficulty is compounded by the fact that the global-threat environment is becoming more dangerous by the day. So his hollow pledges will come under far greater scrutiny than those made by his predecessors. This is particularly the case where the UK's Nato allies are concerned. Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte has already fired the first shot, over Starmer's ambivalence about when the money will be made available to fund his rearmament programme. Rutte warns that Nato will require the UK to spend 3.5 percent of GDP on defence as part of his plan to 'equalise' European defence spending with the US. Starmer has indicated his ultimate 'ambition' is to raise spending to 3.5 per cent by 2034, but has given no clear explanation about how to achieve this figure. As one of the main premises of his defence review is that the UK should focus on being a 'Nato first' military force, failing to meet Rutte's ambitious target could prove to be deeply embarrassing. Starmer will need to take care that his empty defence pledges do not further inflame the more hawkish members of the Trump administration. They already believe that the Europeans are taking the US for a ride when it comes to defence spending. Nato's European member states are likely to come under intense American scrutiny at the summit being held in The Hague later this month. If the Trump administration concludes that Starmer's boasts about increasing UK defence spending do not add up, the Prime Minister could find himself in for a very tough ride indeed. 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.