logo
Starmer and the EU are still trying to punish Britain for Brexit

Starmer and the EU are still trying to punish Britain for Brexit

Telegraph4 days ago
We are reaching the scorched earth stage. Labour senses that it will lose the next election. The EU senses it, too. So both sides have decided to lock the UK into its subordinate status, to sign 'Farage-proof' agreements that future governments will struggle to unpick.
The Telegraph has seen the texts on agriculture and energy policy that Sir Keir Starmer agreed in May. No wonder the PM was reluctant to get into specifics. Britain has accepted permanent and unilateral EU control of its food and energy regulations. Worse, it is agreeing to pay for the privilege of being slapped about.
The ins and outs of the deals, unlike Starmer's soft-soap salesmanship at the time, are brutal. We are to become the EU's helots.
'Neither agreement should give the United Kingdom the right to participate in the Union's decision-making,' the text proclaims, without diplomatic niceties.
Yet, at the same time: 'The United Kingdom should contribute financially to supporting the relevant costs associated with the Union's work in these policy areas. This includes financial contribution to inter alia the functioning of the relevant Union agencies, systems and databases.'
To see how abusive the relationship is, try to picture it the other way around. Imagine a British Government insisting that trade with the EU is contingent on Brussels making financial transfers to the Treasury; that disputes will be arbitrated by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; that Brussels must label its goods to avoid leakage into Northern Ireland; that British fishermen should have access to EU waters; that the EU might be allowed to defend British interests militarily, but only if it pays for the privilege; that any change in future British regulations will automatically be shadowed on the Continent.
Such things are, of course, unimaginable. British Euro-fanatics maintain that this asymmetry simply reflects the difference in the size of our economies, but that is nonsense. We are the sixth-largest economy in the world, for Heaven's sake, and we are accepting terms that far smaller EU trading partners would not countenance.
Indeed, nowhere else in the world are trade deals dependent on the deliberate subjection of one of the contracting parties. Australia and New Zealand have perhaps the most comprehensive trade agreement on the planet, but it would not occur to either side that the Kiwis should make budgetary transfers or hand over their fishing grounds as a participation fee.
Talking of which, New Zealand has a mutual recognition deal on agrifoods with the EU of a kind not uncommon among developed economies. Each side agrees to trust the other's regulators. If a consignment of Danish bacon is approved by local inspectors, that is good enough for the Kiwis, and vice versa.
There was no reason for the EU not to have a similar deal with Britain, whose food standards were not simply compatible with its own, but identical. But Eurocrats were feeling vindictive. They wanted to punish us for the referendum. More than this, they fretted that, if Britain was allowed to opt out of the more unscientific and onerous Brussels regulations, it might import food from the rest of the world. It might, for example, go back to buying its beef from Australia and Canada rather than Ireland and France.
So Eurocrats demanded 'dynamic alignment' (an odd phrase, few things being less dynamic than the EU). They insisted that the UK should not simply meet EU standards when selling to the EU, but should impose them domestically. And they insisted that the deal should be open-ended, so that future changes in those regulations would be automatically applied in Britain.
The last Government was having none of it. It was well aware of the statistics. EU food exports to the UK were worth around four times as much as the reverse. And many British exports were in categories where safety checks did not apply: Scotch whisky, for example.
It was Brussels that was, in diplomatic parlance, the demander here. The UK buys around £40 billion of EU food each year – a quarter of everything Europe exports. We take twice as much as the EU's next biggest customer (the US), and four times as much as the one after that (China). If Brussels wanted a New Zealand-style mutual recognition deal, said the Conservative Government, great; but the idea that Britain would invite foreign officials to regulate its domestic food standards was a non-starter.
Then came Starmer and everything changed. The hapless Labour leader was not interested in cost-benefit analyses. Rather, he approached the EU in the spirit of a mediaeval penitent, a man who wanted the sin of Brexit to be scourged from him. Deep down, he shared the European view that his country deserved to pay a price.
So he reversed the previous Government's position and invited Brussels to tell him what to do. More than this, he agreed to pay for it. As the text spells out: 'The United Kingdom should bear appropriate costs for participation in the common sanitary and phytosanitary area and for the implementation of the agreement to link the United Kingdom and the Union's greenhouse emissions trading systems.'
In exchange for what? Insults, chiefly. Again, try to imagine it the other way around. Imagine that, at every summit with a European leader, the British began by saying how wrong the other country was to allow its laws to be set abroad. 'I deplore Germany's decision to hand over its democracy to unelected Brussels functionaries, but I accept the decision of the German electorate.'
You can't, can you? Yet we barely notice any more when European leaders say, as the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz did at his summit with Starmer this week: 'The UK, and I personally deplore this deeply, decided to leave the European Union.' The reason he gets away with it, of course, is that Starmer agrees. So, indeed, does the Cabinet.
The Europhile think-tank, UK in a Changing Europe, writes quarterly reports monitoring the extent of divergence between Britain and the EU. Its latest, published last week, finds an unprecedented degree of alignment across 21 areas including energy policy, fisheries, trade, energy and competition. The few areas in which Britain had been diverging – the freedom to grow precision crops, for example – are being brought into line.
Leftists often have a false idea of what conservatives believe, and Labour came to office genuinely convinced that the Tories were rejecting collaboration with the EU out of xenophobia. As a Number 10 spokesman told this newspaper last week: 'The Tory method was making bad choices because they were stuck in the ideological treacle of the past. We're not going to continue that.'
The truth – that Britain had pushed for close economic relations and had baulked only at the Carthaginian terms demanded by the other side – never entered Labour heads. Thinking that they were putting pragmatism above ideology, Labour accepted the EU's terms, to the incredulity of Brussels functionaries, who are now rushing to lock the deal in permanently.
Britain's paltry asks – easier access for touring artists, equivalence for our financial services companies – were dropped during the talks. The sole claimed victory – the use of e-gates for British passport holders, something the EU could have done at any time, as Britain does for EU passports – turned out not to have been agreed.
On the other hand, Brussels got absolutely everything it wanted, from guarantees against British competition and a UK defence commitment down to a British agreement to subsidise the university fees of EU students, something that matters enormously to the children of Eurocrats (Eurobrats, as it were). It was an EU clean sweep. So long, and thanks for all the fish.
I suppose there is one silver lining. When, as seems inevitable, Labour's fiscal incontinence brings a full-scale financial crisis, not even the #FBPE halfwits will be able to blame Brexit.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Starmer faces mounting calls for a Lionesses Bank Holiday if England women retain their Euros title after dramatic semi-final comeback
Starmer faces mounting calls for a Lionesses Bank Holiday if England women retain their Euros title after dramatic semi-final comeback

Daily Mail​

time15 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Starmer faces mounting calls for a Lionesses Bank Holiday if England women retain their Euros title after dramatic semi-final comeback

English football fans should get a day off to celebrate if the Lionesses bring it home by winning the Euros for the second time in a row, Keir Starmer has been told today. The Prime Minister is facing renewed calls for a Bank Holiday if the women's national team beat either German or Spain in Sunday's final. The Lionesses tested the nation's stress levels again last night with an incredible extra-time win over Italy in a semi-final, after scoring second from the end of normal time and extra time. Last-gasp goals by Michelle Agyemang and Chloe Smith saw them overcome Italy 2-1 in Geneva. No10 has been resisting calls to give millions of workers a day off, despite Sir Keir backing calls for a Bank Holiday when they won the Euros in 2022, when he was opposition leader. Liberal Democrat culture, media and sport spokesman Max Wilkinson said that it was important for the nation to mark 'the talent, success and historic achievement' of the team. 'The Lionesses can make history on Sunday and retain the Euros title they won so memorably three years ago. If they do that, the Prime Minister should give us a public holiday to honour their achievement,' he said. 'Retaining the title would be one of our country's greatest sporting achievements. Fans and patriots across the country deserve the chance to celebrate the talent, success and historic achievement of this amazing team. 'The Prime Minister is a football fan - we've all seen the pictures of him enjoying a kick around with his mates. 'If Wiegman's heroes deliver glory, we'll all be hoping he'll put the ball into an empty net by giving the Lionesses and the rest of us a chance to mark the occasion.' The Lionesses were on the brink of elimination by Italy when 19-year-old substitute Michelle Agyemang forced extra time, drawing the sides level with an equaliser in the sixth minute of stoppage time to cancel out Barbara Bonansea's 33rd-minute opener. Then, with another shootout minutes away, Beth Mead was brought down and Kelly stepped up to the spot, where she was initially denied by Laura Giuliani, but buried the rebound to complete England's second successive stunning comeback. Asked yesterday whether the PM will grant a Bank Holiday if England go on to win the whole tournament on Sunday, Sir Keir's spokesman said: 'I'm not aware of any plans for that.' In 2022, the previous Tory government ruled out granting an extra Bank Holiday if England won the women's Euros. This was despite pressure from Sir Keir, the then Opposition leader, for them to do so. Ahead of that year's final, the Labour leader told the Daily Mirror that a Lionesses' victory should be 'marked with a proper day of celebration'. In 2023, when England reached the World Cup final, Sir Keir posted on social media: 'It's almost 60 years since England won the World Cup. 'I'm never complacent about anything… but there should be a celebratory bank holiday if the Lionesses bring it home.' However, a report in 2022 said that the cost to the public finances of a single day bank holiday due to lost productivity is around £2.4billion.

Cabinet ministers urge Starmer to recognise Palestine
Cabinet ministers urge Starmer to recognise Palestine

Spectator

time17 minutes ago

  • Spectator

Cabinet ministers urge Starmer to recognise Palestine

Parliament may have risen for recess but that doesn't mean that Sir Keir Starmer is getting much of a break. It transpires that the Prime Minister is facing growing calls to immediately recognise Palestine as a state with a number of Cabinet minister understood to be piling pressure on the PM alongside dozens of his backbenchers. On Tuesday, just before MPs left Westminster for summer recess, Health Secretary Wes Streeting urged Sir Keir to recognise Palestine 'while there's still a state of Palestine left to recognise'. He went on: I deplore Israel's attacks on healthcare workers as well as other innocent civilians trying to access healthcare or vital aid. These actions go well beyond legitimate self-defence and undermine the prospects for peace. I sincerely hope that the international community can come together, as the foreign secretary has been driving towards, to make sure that we see an end of this war but also that we recognise the state of Palestine while there is a state of Palestine left to recognise. Streeting isn't the only member of the Cabinet understood to have pushed the issue in meetings. As reported by the Guardian, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn have also brought it up. The Health Secretary's intervention follows that of nearly 60 Labour MPs, who sent a letter to Foreign Secretary David Lammy at the start of the month after Israeli defence minister Israel Katz proposed plans to force Gaza's into a camp in Rafah. While Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard described the move was 'about population transfer to the southern tip of Gaza in preparation for deportation outside the strip', the MP group wrote: 'Though an accurate description, we believe there is a clearer one. The ethnic cleansing of Gaza.' Of course, it's not just Labour politicians who have been vocal on the Middle East. As Mr S wrote in May, more than a dozen senior Tory MPs and peers broke ranks to write to Starmer to urge the PM to immediately recognise Palestine as a state. The seven MPs and six House of Lords grandees have signed a letter that insists 'recognising Palestine would affirm our nation's commitment to upholding the principles of justice, self-determination and equal rights'. The letter was signed by several Tory moderates – including MPs Kit Malthouse, Simon Hoare and father of the house Sir Edward Leigh alongside peers such as Nicholas Soames and Hugo Swire. Mr S was rather interested to note that there were some more surprising signatories, however, with right-wing Conservative MP Sir John Hayes backing the call. Starmer hadn't changed the UK's stance after the Tory group or the Labour backbenchers reached out – but will he be swayed by his own Cabinet ministers? Stay tuned…

Evri cashes in on second-hand boom with record number of deliveries
Evri cashes in on second-hand boom with record number of deliveries

The Independent

time17 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Evri cashes in on second-hand boom with record number of deliveries

Evri delivered more parcels than ever over the past year as it cashed in on the growth of 'bedroom CEOs' selling second-hand items and newer delivery opportunities like car parts and flowers. The West Yorkshire-based group said it delivered more than 807 million parcels over the year to the end of February. This was 11% more than the 730 million the previous year, and represents a 25% increase in parcel numbers in the last two years. Revenues for the company jumped by 12% to £1.85 billion year-on-year, it revealed. Evri said sales growth was partly fuelled by the booming popularity of second-hand marketplaces like eBay and Vinted, which has shown no sign of easing. The trend for buying and selling items online has created more opportunities for the parcel firm, with social media platforms like TikTok's shop helping change shopper behaviour, it said. Martijn de Lange, Evri's chief executive, said: 'It was a year that saw us expand our client base into new sectors, including fresh food, car parts and floristry, and grow our presence in existing ones. 'We continue to meet increased demand for customer-to-customer deliveries for online marketplaces, as buyer and seller behaviour changes – fuelled by scroll and spend social commerce sites such as TikTok's shop. 'Evri's tech-enabled convenience is equipping a growing army of bedroom CEOs who are shaping the future of ecommerce.' Evri, which was previously part of the Hermes parcel group, revealed that it spent £57 million over the financial year on its operations and technology in a bid to improve service levels. It has previously highlighted an improvement in its ratings over recent years but said there was 'more to do' to improve with some customers continuing to report delivery issues. The group recently announced it was joining forces with DHL's UK ecommerce arm to form one of the country's biggest delivery firms. The deal means Evri will enter the UK business letter market for the first time, bolstering its competition to Royal Mail.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store