Starmer hails ‘common sense' EU deal as Brexiteers condemn ‘surrender'
Under the deal struck with Brussels, more tourists will be able to use e-gates at airports in Europe, pet passports will be introduced for UK cats and dogs and businesses can sell burgers and sausages into the bloc again.
But the Prime Minister faced accusations of betraying Brexit over the extension of fishing rights for European vessels for a further 12 years and closer ties to EU rules.
Sir Keir met European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and European Council president Antonio Costa at a summit in Lancaster House, London, to seal the deal.
The Prime Minister said: 'It's time to look forward. To move on from the stale old debates and political fights to find common sense, practical solutions which get the best for the British people.
'We're ready to work with partners if it means we can improve people's lives here at home.
'So that's what this deal is all about – facing out into the world once again, in the great tradition of this nation.
'Building the relationships we choose, with the partners we choose, and closing deals in the national interest. Because that is what independent, sovereign nations do.'
Sir Keir Starmer and Ursula von der Leyen led high-profile delegations at the summit (Kin Cheung/PA)
Measures include:
– A 12-year extension of fishing arrangements when the current deal ends, allowing European vessels to operate in UK waters under the same terms until 2038.
– An open-ended new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement to slash red tape on food and drink exports and imports between the UK and EU.
– Some routine checks on plant and animal products will be removed completely and British burgers and sausages will once more be allowed into the EU.
– Linking UK and EU emissions-trading schemes which will mean British firms will not be hit by Brussels' carbon tax next year.
– A security and defence partnership will pave the way for UK arms firms to bid for work under the EU's proposed new £150 billion security action for Europe (Safe) fund.
– The UK and EU have agreed to co-operate on a 'youth experience scheme', but British officials insisted numbers would be capped and stays would be time-limited.
– British steel exports will be protected from new EU rules and restrictive tariffs, saving the beleaguered industry £25 million.
In striking the deal, the Prime Minister has had to balance the Government's desperate search for measures to grow the economy with the backlash he will inevitably face from Brexit-supporting voters and political opponents.
The acceptance of some form of youth mobility programme, allowing young EU citizens to live, work and study in the UK and vice versa, has been politically controversial because of the Government's drive to cut net migration.
Officials insisted the scheme being proposed would not breach the Government's red line of not allowing the return of free movement, pointing to similar deals with Australia and New Zealand.
The 'reset' deal also respects the Government's other red lines of not returning to the customs union or single market, officials said.
But Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'We're becoming a rule-taker from Brussels once again.
'And with no details on any cap or time limits on youth mobility, fears of free movement returning will only increase. This is very concerning.'
Shadow farming minister Robbie Moore accused Sir Keir of 'surrendering access to our British waters to European fishermen'.
'Whose side is he on? When Labour negotiates, Britain loses,' he added.
Reform UK's Nigel Farage said the 12-year deal on access for European boats 'will be the end of the fishing industry'.
Mr Farage's deputy leader Richard Tice said: 'Labour surrenders. Brussels bureaucrats win again.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
18 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Almost 1500 buildings in Scotland ‘at risk' from cladding
Latest estimates indicate the cladding remediation programme could cost £1.7 billion over a 15-year period. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Almost 1,500 buildings in Scotland are "at risk" from cladding which has yet to be removed, despite the Grenfell Tower disaster, the Scottish Liberal Democrats said. There are about 13,400 blocks of flats higher than 11 metres in Scotland , according to figures published by the Scottish Government this month. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However new figures show that an estimated 1,260-1,450 of them need remedial work to alleviate external wall system (EWS) life-safety fire risk. In statistics published by the Scottish Government in Scotland's cladding remediation programme, it was said that by April 30 , two single building assessments (SBAs), based on specification published in June 2024 , had been completed and a further 13 assessments had been started. By April 30 , two completed assessments identified that remedial works were required, and work had begun for one but not the other, the statistics showed. In June 2024 , the Housing (Cladding Remediation) ( Scotland ) Bill was passed, giving ministers powers to "to assess and remediate certain types of buildings with unsafe cladding". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On Friday the Scottish Government said latest estimates indicate its cladding remediation programme could cost £1.7 billion over a 15-year period. About 250 of the residential high-rise buildings in Scotland may require work to alleviate external wall system (EWS) life-safety fire risk, while 1,020-1,200 of the mid-rise residential buildings require work to alleviate the same issue, according to a breakdown of the figures. In contrast, by May 2025 in England , 2,477 buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation works, representing 49% of buildings within the programme. There is a target to complete the remediation of high-rise buildings by 2029 and for mid-rise buildings to have either been completely remediated by the date, or to have a plan in place with a date set. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Of these, 1,652 buildings (33%) have been completed, according to UK Government statistics published in May. Scottish Liberal Democrat communities spokesman Willie Rennie MSP accused the Scottish Government of "refusing to set" a similar deadline. He said the remediation work was happening "inexplicably slowly" and called for progress. Mr Rennie said: "In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster, ministers should be bending over backwards to remove unsafe cladding. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "But these figures show that the SNP are nowhere: they have made next to no progress, leaving so many homeowners and residents in a distressing limbo. "The Scottish Government have repeatedly failed to appreciate the dangers posed by certain building materials. "They have refused to set a deadline for removing cladding and they have taken an unbelievably blase approach to the problems of RAAC concrete. "The SNP have acted inexplicably slowly. They must urgently step up the pace in remediating at-risk buildings and keep everyone who is potentially affected informed and updated on progress."
ITV News
20 minutes ago
- ITV News
British photographer hit by non-lethal bullets during LA protests
A British news photographer has undergone emergency surgery after being hit by non-lethal rounds during protests in Los Angeles. Nick Stern was documenting a stand-off between anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) protesters and police outside a Home Depot in Paramount, a city in LA county and a location known as a hiring spot for day labourers, when a 14mm 'sponge bullet' tore into his thigh. He told the PA news agency: 'My initial concern was, were they firing live rounds? 'Some of the protesters came and helped me, and they ended up carrying me, and I noticed that there was blood pouring down my leg.' He was treated by a medic who urged him to go to hospital. At one point, Mr Stern says he passed out from the pain. He is now recovering at Long Beach Memorial Medical Centre following emergency surgery. Mr Stern, who emigrated to the US in 2007, said he typically makes himself 'as visible as possible' while working in hostile situations. 'That way you're less likely to get hit because they know you're media,' he said. It is the second incident of its kind for Mr Stern, who said he sustained 'substantial' bruising after being hit by another live round during the George Floyd protests in 2020. 'The communities in LA are very tight and very close-knit,' Mr Stern said. 'So an outside organisation like Ice coming in and removing – whatever you want to call it, removing, kidnapping, abducting people from the community – is not going to go down well at all.' It comes after US President Donald Trump announced plans to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to California to quell the protests, which began on Friday in downtown LA before spreading. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the move was 'essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States'. The decision drew sharp criticism from Democratic politicians, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called the move 'purposefully inflammatory'. Demonstrators have been protesting the Trump administration's immigration raids, which last month aimed to detain as many as 3,000 people per day. Despite his injury, Mr Stern says he is eager to return to work. 'I intend, as soon as I am well enough, to get back out there,' he said. 'This is too important and it needs documenting.'
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Millions of pensions at risk from savings raid
The pensions of nine million savers are at risk from reforms allowing companies to raid their retirement schemes, the Government's impact assessment has admitted. Proposed changes to final salary pension schemes could mean that more of them run out of money, civil servants warned, leaving them unable to fulfil their financial obligations to members. The comments were seized on by critics of the proposed change, which would allow companies that manage these so-called defined benefit pension schemes to take out 'surplus' money as profit or for reinvestment. But supporters of the move downplayed the risks, saying that pension trustees would typically be given a say on any money handed back. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, and Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, are championing the reforms, which are contained in the Pension Schemes Bill. Any money paid out as profit would be subject to tax for the Treasury as it struggles to balance the books. The impact assessment for the proposed changes, written by civil servants at Department for Work and Pensions, said: 'If schemes choose to modify their rules to enable surplus extraction, this adds an indirect cost to members in terms of the increased likelihood of members not receiving their pension benefits in full. 'A scheme surplus can act as a financial cushion for members, to absorb unexpected costs or investment losses for the scheme. Without this cushion, the scheme may be more likely to struggle to meet its obligations to members, especially in times of financial stress or economic shocks.' Defined benefit pension schemes guarantee members a set portion of their final or career average salary after retirement. They are funded by money paid in while members are working. Schemes are in surplus if they are judged to have more money than they need to meet all promised payments to members. Lower interest rates after the financial crisis plunged many schemes into deficit by wrecking their expected investment returns, forcing the companies that sponsor them to make up the gap by pumping in billions of pounds extra. Now interest rates have risen again, schemes have mostly returned to surplus – and companies are seeking to extract some money that they say funds no longer need. The Bill creates new rules allowing employers to remove this cash. But critics are concerned about the risks if another economic crisis sends rates plunging again. This possibility was acknowledged in the 400-page impact assessment, although it added: 'Overall, it is assumed this increased likelihood of members not receiving their benefits in full to be very low given the important role trustees will play in overseeing any decision. The Pension Security Alliance (PSA), which includes Silver Voices, the independent senior citizens group, and John Ralfe, a pensions consultant, raised concerns about the assessment. The PSA said: 'The Government's own analysis proves that the Government's plans pose a risk to the retirement incomes of millions of members of defined benefit pension schemes. It's shocking to learn that civil servants have told ministers that if these plans go ahead, some pension schemes could struggle to meet their obligations to pay pensions. 'Pension scheme members have worked to earn their pensions and the money in pension schemes is there to provide them with a secure income in retirement. This official assessment, prepared by independent civil servants, shows that the Government's plans put those retirement incomes at risk. 'Pension schemes are not a piggy-bank that politicians can dip into or a cash-cow for employers. Pension schemes exist to benefit members and this is official confirmation that the Government's plans could actually harm members. That can't be right.' Among critics of the change are figures in the pensions insurance industry, which buys defined benefit pension schemes. The proposals do have supporters, including Steve Webb, a partner at pension consultant LCP who was pensions minister in the coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. Mr Webb said: 'The funding of company pension schemes has been transformed in recent years. The majority of schemes now have surplus funds which can be used in a responsible way to benefit scheme members, through improved benefits, as well as the companies who have paid so much in for so long. 'The plans have plenty of safeguards, including the judgment of trustees who will be seeking to ensure that using surplus funds does not undermine the security of member benefits. This is a positive initiative which should be supported.'
