Badenoch tells EU she would reverse Labour's post-Brexit reset if UK ‘damaged'
Kemi Badenoch has told the EU's ambassador in London that she would reverse any measures in the Government's post-Brexit reset that 'damaged the interests of the United Kingdom'.
Mrs Badenoch is due to meet Pedro Serrano, the EU's representative to the UK, in London on Monday. The meeting between Mrs Badenoch and the ambassador comes a week before the Prime Minister will host bloc chiefs at a major summit in the UK.
The May 19 meeting is likely to be the first in a series of annual summits between the UK and the EU, and comes as ministers are looking to reset relations with Brussels.
In a letter to Mr Serrano, dated on Friday, Mrs Badenoch described Brexit as a 'defining moment for our nation'.
She laid out five tests that the Conservative Party has when it comes to the UK's relationship with the EU, including 'no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers' and 'no new money' being paid to the bloc.
She would also want to see 'no reduction' in the UK's fishing rights and no 'European Court jurisdiction' as well as 'no compromise on the primacy of Nato as the cornerstone of European security'.
Mrs Badenoch explained: 'It is important that I stress that the next Conservative government under my leadership would not remain bound by terms that failed the five tests set out above, and damaged the interests of the United Kingdom and its people.
'We would take back any legislative or judicial powers handed over to the EU by the present government.'
A Conservative spokesman said that Sir Keir is 'clearly gearing up to hand over the freedoms we won through Brexit just to be in Brussels' good books'.
The spokesman added: 'Kemi hopes that pledging to reverse Starmer's EU surrender will send a clear signal to the EU that any lop-sided deal they sign with Labour isn't worth the paper it's written on.'
On Friday, Sir Keir told the Guardian that he is 'ambitious' about what could be achieved with the EU.
'I want a closer relationship on security, on defence, on trade and on the economy,' he told the newspaper.
A Labour source said that Mrs Badenoch 'spent her time as Trade Secretary picking fights and alienating our allies rather than doing deals that put money in working people's pockets'.
They added: 'Now she is seeking to pre-judge a future deal that hasn't even been agreed yet and would only be made if it was in the British national interest.
'The Labour government is getting on with delivering on the mandate we were given last July to build a strategic partnership with European partners to deliver an improved deal in the national interest.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Starmer hints at revival of UK-Canada trade talks ahead of G7 summit
Britain and Canada will seek to revive stalled trade negotiations, Sir Keir Starmer has indicated ahead of a meeting with Mark Carney in the lead-up to a major international summit. The Prime Minister said the world's 'changing' economy means Britain must aim to reduce barriers with other allies as he flew to Ottawa for the first visit by a UK leader to the country in eight years. Negotiations between Britain and Canada on a post-Brexit trade agreement were halted last year under the previous Tory administration amid disputes over beef and cheese. The Government has reached economic deals with India, the US and the EU in recent months and is looking to pursue further deals with other allies to mitigate the threat of US President Donald Trump's tariffs. Sir Keir will be walking a diplomatic tightrope between strengthening bilateral relations with Ottawa and keeping the US president, who has expressed desires to annex the country as a '51st state', on side. Asked about the prospect of a trade agreement with Canada, the Prime Minister told reporters travelling with him to Ottawa on Saturday: 'I want to increase our trade with Canada and I will be discussing how we do so with Mark Carney. 'I have known Mark a long time, we are allies and colleagues and I have a very good relationship with him. We do a lot of trade with Canada as it is. 'Some months ago I said the world is changing on trade and the economy, just as it is changing on defence and security and I think that means we need to be more securing our base at home and turbo-charging what we are doing on the cost of living and at the same time reducing trade barriers with other countries. 'I've been expressing that in my discussions with Mark Carney and he is in the same position.' The Prime Minister said the interests of British citizens would be at the heart of his conversations with all international leaders as he prepares for a week of diplomacy at the G7 summit. The UK and Canada have a trade relationship worth £28 billion to the British economy and are both members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Sir Keir will fly from Ottawa to Kananaskis in the Canadian mountains for talks with counterparts from the world's leading economies. Spiralling conflict in the Middle East and the war in Ukraine will be top of the agenda in the talks between the UK, Canada, the US, France, Italy, Japan and Germany. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is also expected to attend. Number 10 said the Prime Minister would use the trip to urge 'restraint and de-escalation' after Iran launched retaliatory strikes on Israel overnight. 'In these dangerous times, I am determined to forge a unique path to secure and renew Britain in an era of global instability,' he said. Sir Keir is also expected to meet Mr Trump, with whom he said he is in the 'final stages' of completing an agreed-upon US-UK trade deal, at the G7 summit. The Prime Minister told reporters on Saturday he had a 'good relationship' with the US president and 'that's important'. 'I've been saying, for probably the best part of six months now, we're in a new era of defence and security, a new era for trade and the economy,' he said. 'And I think it's really important for Britain to play a leading part in that, and that's what I'll be doing at the G7, talking to all of our partners in a constructive way. 'And I'm very pleased that I have developed good relations with all the G7 leaders to the point where… I have a very good relations with all of them.' Mr Carney has previously criticised the UK Government's invitation for Mr Trump to make a second state visit, telling Sky News earlier this year that Canadians were 'not impressed' by the gesture. In his strongest defence yet of the nation, Sir Keir said on Saturday he was 'absolutely clear' that Canada was an 'independent, sovereign country' and 'quite right too'. 'I'm not going to get into the precise conversations I've had, but let me be absolutely clear: Canada is an independent, sovereign country and a much-valued member of the Commonwealth,' he said. Sir Keir was greeted warmly by Mr Carney as he arrived at Rideau Cottage, the prime minister's official residence, for dinner on Saturday evening before the two leaders watched a game of ice hockey. 'Here he is,' the Canadian premier said, joking that he was 'as nervous as you when it's the Champions League' about the Stanley Cup final match between his beloved Edmonton Oilers and the Florida Panthers. 'It's all going to work out,' Mr Carney said. 'The Oilers are going to win, it's going to be the best G7 ever.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The state spends £24,000 a year for every adult. Something's got to give
It's amazing how things change. Just a few months ago Rachel Reeves told us the financial situation was so grim she had no choice but to take the winter fuel payment from all but the poorest pensioners. And now, thanks to Labour, it's all going so well she can afford to give it back. That was, of course, a lie. But it wasn't the big lie. No, the big lie was that the spending review bore any relation to what we will actually spend. The traditional recipe for political success is simple: scrimp, then splurge. Get the pain out of the way after the election, so you can splash out before the next one. • Jobs market is flashing a warning sign to Rachel Reeves That's not the approach Reeves took. She wanted to show she was ending austerity (such as it was). But the finances were desperately tight. Her solution, apart from raising taxes, was to frontload her spending increases and hope something turned up. The result is a spending profile that resembles a child playing a violin: sharp, then flat. Between 2025-26 and 2028-29, day-to-day departmental spending is to rise from £518 billion to £568 billion. Factoring in inflation, that means budgets in the last two years of the parliament will grow by just 1 per cent a year — and far less for most departments, since the overall figure includes 3 per cent a year for the NHS (which is getting more than half of all the extra cash). Will Labour really go into the election amid more 'Tory austerity'? Well, no. It'll want to spend more. Or need to: Reeves's ferociously tight numbers leave no room for downturns, pay strikes, trade wars or shooting wars. Her plans also depend on £14 billion in hazily detailed 'efficiency savings'. And the hoped-for bailout via a mid-term growth bonanza is less likely than ever. But here's the paradox. From the perspective of the Labour Party, most of those working in public services and her own electoral prospects, Reeves isn't spending nearly enough. But from another perspective, the chancellor is spending far, far too much. Public spending is running at 44 per cent of GDP, a historic high. Taxes, too, are historically high, and universally expected to go higher. Not only have we been spending like crazy, not least because of the pandemic, but we've been spending money we don't have — resulting in an annual bill of more than £100 billion just to cover the interest on our debts. These numbers can be hard to put into context. So our team at the Centre for Policy Studies think tank has come up with a different way of looking at it. We estimate that we are now spending £23,757 for every adult in this country: roughly two thirds of the average full-time salary of £37,500. That includes £3,807 on health, £5,817 on welfare and pensions and a shocking £1,955 for that debt bill. Restrict the calculation to those of working age, and spending is north of £30,000 a head. Factor in economic inactivity, and the state is almost certainly spending more than every worker aged 18 to 65 is earning. This is very obviously not sustainable. So how to square the circle? Given the position we're in, shaving departmental budgets just won't cut it, especially when the chancellor claims to have already ruthlessly reviewed every pound they spend (yet somehow set them all the same target for efficiency savings). We need to accept instead that government cannot actually do all the things it tries to. But we already know how hard that will be. If ministers are going to U-turn on the winter fuel payment and wobble on a set of welfare reforms that barely slow, let alone halt, the rise in disability and incapacity spending, how can they possibly tackle issues like the triple lock, social care or special educational needs and disability (Send) costs for councils? That's before even mentioning the NHS. So here are a couple of heretical thoughts. The first is that rather than guaranteeing the level of any individual benefit, we should think in terms of total spend. Let's say we decide that we can only afford to devote 1.5 per cent of GDP to a particular benefit. If more people claim, the totals go down. If people want more cash, they either have to dob in the fraudsters or accept the kinds of policy likely to swell GDP. A gentler version would be to keep benefits from falling, but ensure that they increase only when we can actually afford it. Revolutionary, I know. The second idea is more fundamental: to accept that government cannot actually move the economic needle. If you were listening to the spending review, you would have heard pledge after pledge: billions spent on this, billions on that. But that is not how you get the economy growing. You do that by creating the conditions for individuals and businesses to boost it for you. This may sound like Thatcherite dogma. But it's simple maths. Investment in the UK is roughly 18 per cent of GDP. But the state is responsible for perhaps a sixth of that. Hence Reeves's talk of 'co-investment': using small amounts of state funding to leverage much larger private sums. Or let's look at affordable housing, one of the few areas that did get some cash at the spending review. The government is promising an extra £39 billion over ten years. That's useful. But housebuilders knocked up £46 billion in private sector housing in just the past year — a pretty slow year, at point is that even small increases, or falls, in private sector activity have a far larger impact on the economy, and balance sheet, than the endless initiatives that pour forth from government. Which is precisely why Reeves's jobs tax was so damaging. Generating those increases, or falls, often isn't about money, but common sense. On housebuilding, for example, our system is based on local plans set out by councils. But loads of councils don't have plans in place. And Labour has embarked on a massive local government reorganisation that will delay their publication still further, dooming any hope of hitting its housing targets. It may be anathema to many on the Labour benches, but if the government is to have any hope of avoiding tax rises not just this autumn but for years to come, it needs to do what it finds hardest: clear the obstacles and let the private sector get on with it. The temptation, instead, will be to hammer work, wealth and business one more time. Which will of course make the task facing the chancellor even harder.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Labour to force academies to take thousands of violent and disruptive pupils permanently excluded from other schools
Ministers are pushing through new laws to fast-track the admission of violent and disruptive pupils into academy schools. In the latest attempt by Labour to clip the wings of academies, which are designed to be free of local authority control, schools would be directed by councils to take thousands of pupils permanently excluded for physical violence or threatening to use an offensive weapon. Currently, they have the power to do so only if the Education Secretary rules on their behalf. The attacks on the academies by Left-wing Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has dismayed moderates within the party, who believe schools are more likely to flourish if headteachers are given the freedom to run them. The School Bill would force academies to follow the national curriculum and constrain their autonomy. Until now, the academies have had the freedom to refuse a pupil assigned by a local authority if they think it would undermine the safety or learning of other children at the school. In the latest attempt by Labour to clip the wings of academies, which are designed to be free of local authority control, schools would be directed by councils to take thousands of pupils permanently excluded for physical violence or threatening to use an offensive weapon. Pictured: File photo But under the Bill, councils would be given the power to force admission directly for the 5,000 children excluded for violence every year. Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott said: 'There have to be consequences for bad behaviour – that's real life. Labour are weak on discipline. 'They've axed behaviour hubs and voted against reporting violence against teachers to the police. 'An inclusion charter puts the needs of one disruptive child above the other 29 who want to learn. It's misguided.' The Department for Education said: 'An academy can already be directed to accept a vulnerable pupil who has been excluded. 'The proposals would simplify this process... The purpose of the measure is to ensure vulnerable children have access to a school place in the rare instances when normal admission processes fail.'
