
It's taken a Remainer to fix the Brexiteers' mess
With his long-trailed Brexit 'reset' on Monday, Keir Starmer sought to settle a long-term trading relationship with, but outside of, the European Union, which wouldn't need revisiting on a near-constant basis.
Almost nine years after the UK narrowly voted to leave the EU, a strange political reality has emerged – and it is that Remainers are the only politicians taking Brexit seriously.
For the sake of saving what remains of British exports, especially in food and drink, that meant coming to a long-term agreement on food safety checks at the border – which were not only leading to long queues, but also making exports near impossible for fresh meat and fish (the difficulties of exporting fishing catches have, funnily enough, been missing from Brexiteers' fish discourse).
The UK similarly needed some certainty on accessing the EU's energy market, and working out in future how the UK could interconnect with it in turn – for the short-term, so the UK has certainty on how it can import electricity when we need it, but with the longer-term ambition of exporting energy when we have enough green generation in place.
Inexplicably, energy cooperation – which is essential to the UK's future economic growth – has attracted barely a tenth of the column inches as has fishing, an industry which employs fewer full-time fishers than there are tattooists in the UK, but any long-term EU deal needed to explore these questions.
Similarly, Starmer has at least laid the groundwork for defence and security cooperation, including exports of British defence products to the EU as it rearms, alongside youth mobility (which polls extraordinarily well, even among Brexiteers) and other issues.
None of this is on terms that are as good as, let alone better than, the deal that the UK got as part of the EU – but a liveable deal has been reached that allows the UK to focus on other things and normalise relationships with our 27 nearest neighbours.
Brexit can never be said to 'work', as even with this deal the UK economy will grow much more slowly than if we had not left, but Starmer and Labour have at least made the effort to make Brexit workable, to make it something the country can live with – and have given businesses certainty as to what the rules will be, if only for the next few rules, as the Tories and Reform have pledged to reverse them.
In theory, this should have Remainers furiously up in arms – it is the kind of plodding compromise deal that makes reversing Brexit less likely, because settled new arrangements have been made. Brexiteers should be celebrating it, given they have had almost a decade to come up with something better, and have consistently failed. Had Rishi Sunak, a Brexiteer, somehow won last year's election, his deal would likely have looked almost identical to this one.
Instead, inevitably, Brexiteers didn't even wait for the deal to be signed before they screamed betrayal. They did much the same when the government came to a trade agreement with the US last week and completed a deal with India – exactly the kind of Brexit freedom they supposedly campaigned for. The Brexit movement has become less a political ideology as a toddler's tantrum: they have no idea what they want, knowing only that it's not this.
Remainers, despite accusations to the contrary, have generally been much more willing to compromise with reality than the Brexit diehards – most have accepted that a formal movement to rejoin the EU is likely decades away, and the best that can be hoped for was normalising trade relations and trying to get back to working constructively with the world's largest trading bloc. Many sensible people who voted Leave and came to regret it feel much the same.
This is a particularly Starmerish deal. It is pragmatic, it has been got through dint of sustained hard work, and it is something almost no-one could truly love. It's the stuff of compromise, politics as the art of the possible – the German sociolgist Max Weber's 'slow boring of hard boards' in action.
It is a mark of how flat-footed No 10 is politically that the Starmer of this week, heralding his new deal on the world stage and its role in letting Britain play its part internationally sounds like an entirely different PM to the one who spent last week engaging in relentless anti-immigration rhetoric.
The groundwork was not laid, the messaging wasn't there, and there is probably no political win to be had here – Labour would have to be very optimistic to expect a poll bounce as a result of the UK-EU deal. It does, though, play to Starmer's strengths – adding to his credibility as someone who can get things done on the world stage.
What needs to happen next is that the questions about Brexit and deals with Europe should flip. UK farmers and fishers can export now. Soon, young people should be able to live and work in Europe again. Erasmus is back on the cards. There is some certainty, which might even let businesses invest in the UK again.
If Nigel Farage or Kemi Badenoch want the UK to go through the painful process of reopening all of this again, they should be forced to explain why – it is no longer enough to say 'not this'. Renegotiating all of this will cost time and money. They should explain what they would change, and how, or else be ignored.
Farage will surely think he can capitalise on calling this deal, like everything before it, yet another Brexit betrayal. But played right, this deal could contain the seeds of his eventual downfall.
Hashtags

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

The National
31 minutes ago
- The National
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email


Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Declan Lynch: The BBC got us through endless Northern nights, Gerry Adams
The BBC is 'The British Broadcasting Corporation', but nobody calls it that except Gerry Adams. Again and again, very deliberately, as he savours his triumph in the recent libel action against 'The British Broadcasting Corporation', he gives it the full official title — almost as if the 'British' part has connotations of inherent badness. He claims that his purpose in taking the action was to 'put manners' on this British Broadcasting Corporation. There were even suggestions — later denied — that the BBC would consider blocking the transmission of its programmes in this country, rather than risk further exposure to our atrocious libel laws.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask
I couldn't care less about the burka debate. Not a tinker's. Why? Because it's a concession of defeat, a belated response by panicked politicians to a change that's already happened and that they largely encouraged. Last week, a meteor hit Britain with the publication of a demographic study by the queerly named Centre of Heterodox Social Science. By 2063, say the sociable hets, white Britons will be a minority; come the new century, almost one in five citizens will be Muslim. This forces us to consider a very politically incorrect question: will Britain still be Britain if it's no longer majority white British? The official answer is 'absolutely, yes'. Elite liberals believe nations are defined by values, and thus anyone, from anywhere in the world, can become British if they conform to them. It helps that these values are universal. Fairness, tolerance, kindness... this is a portable identity that is uncontroversial, because it demands nothing except to pay one's taxes and avoid murder. Keir Starmer warns that we are becoming an 'island of strangers', while promoting a vision of citizenship that is entirely passive. It's also based on a misreading of human nature. Liberals assume that values shape culture, such that we could pass a law – ban the burka, ban Islamophobia – and we'd become good neighbours overnight. But it's the other way around. Culture shapes values, and culture is the product of non-abstract, substantial qualities, such as climate, geography, religion, language and ethnicity. We can shorthand it as 'history'. Thus: we are democratic in Britain not because a committee decided it over one wild weekend, but following nearly a thousand years of revolution and reaction, baked into memory and expressed as temperament. Such a society is light-touch and self-governing, at least in theory, because we've been marinating in its ethics and customs since birth. The English, Welsh, Scots etc do exist as cultures – not superior to others, nor unaffected by migration, but really real – and if they undergo a profound change in composition, this is bound to change the nature of Britishness, too. Isn't that obvious? It's regarded as axiomatic elsewhere. We rush to recognise and cultivate the historical identity of First Nations people, just as we step back nervously from a Holy Land conflict shaped by competing ethnic claims over biblical territory. And even if you regard ethnic conflict as sinful, as I do, or based upon a category error, as academics insist, we have to accept that identity matters to a lot of people. In which case, I struggle to think of a society in history that has faced the scale of change happening to us without descending into violence or authoritarianism. Today, the liberal understanding of nationhood is already in retreat. Remigration is being trialled in the United States. Donald Trump is reducing inflows by banning travel from named countries, cutting asylum and militarising his border. He's also increasing outflows by expelling as many people as he can on any pretext he can find. For instance, when an Egyptian asylum-seeker assaulted protesters in Colorado, the administration not only arrested the attacker but detained and is seeking to deport his entire family – a 'sins of the father' policy that judges are resisting. Elsewhere, the BBC's Simon Reeve has caused a stir by highlighting the integrationist policies of Denmark, a country that offers people cash to go home and dismantles ghettos. That this is done by social democrats comes as no surprise. Scandinavia is historically conformist; a welfare state requires high levels of solidarity to function. Evidence of my 'history-shapes-identity' theory is offered by how countries respond to the immigration challenge in light of their own traditions. Here, when a Reform UK MP asked the PM for his views on the burka, the PM had no answer and his MPs sounded as shocked as a maiden aunt offered cocaine. Why doesn't Labour want to have this debate? A cynic will say: it offends their core constituency. A Tory will claim: they don't really care about immigration. And yet Labour's immigration White Paper looks tough, and it has already increased deportations compared with the last government. Historically, it was Labour that restricted Commonwealth immigration in the 1960s, and Boris Johnson, of Brexit fame, who threw the borders open. Boris, who liked to play both sides of the immigration game, infamously compared the burka to a letter box – yet did not wish to ban it. Do we not say 'an Englishman's home is his castle'? By extension, they are free to wear whatever they want in the street. The problem, reply nationalists, is that by clinging to a liberal vision, we open the door to illiberal attitudes that might, by strength of conviction, overwhelm us. If the culture goes, our old values will follow. We are not, however, as tolerant as many assume. It has been reported that Prevent now regards 'cultural nationalism' – the fear that society 'is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration' – as a 'sub-category of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideologies', and thus worthy of referral to the authorities. GB News is up in arms – admittedly a permanent condition – but I've yet to hear a guest point out that white Christians are merely experiencing what the security services have done to Muslim Britons since 9/11: slander and harassment. Between 2016 and 2019, over 2,000 children under the age of nine were referred to Prevent, including a four-year-old Muslim boy who talked about a violent computer game at an after-school club. Right and Left are chasing a mirage of British liberalism that, in an age when you can get 31 months for a social-media post, no longer reflects reality. Immigration is ultimately a numbers game. A democratic society can get along fine with any minority, so long as it remains small in number. But when a government fails to police its borders, and thus loses control over numbers, it will feel obliged to police society to maintain harmony: monitoring, deporting, rewriting history, and indoctrinating us in a strange new variant on national character, a parody of kindness best described as 'sinister twee'. If you want a vision of the future, it is a Dawn French-shaped woman, with a midlife-crisis fringe, talking to you about diversity and inclusion as if you were a baby. Then, when you raise an objection, ending the discussion with a disturbingly final 'NO'.