UK-EU summit: Unionists size up possible new Brexit deal
Making up is never easy after such a bruising and bitter break-up but that challenge begins later for the prime minister as the UK and EU hold their first bilateral summit since Brexit.The trick for Sir Keir Starmer will be to reset relations with Brussels without making it appear like a Brexit retreat.Both sides are keen to tear down trade barriers and that could see a deal being struck to greatly reduce the impact of the Irish sea border.An agri-food agreement would remove the need for checks and controls on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
But it will take some time to negotiate and may come at a high price, as the UK may have to align with some EU regulations.That, say opponents, would mean the UK becoming a rule taker from Brussels once more in what would be a Brexit betrayal.It is the tightest of tightropes for Sir Keir Starmer and his government to negotiate, coming at a time when a resurgent Reform party will now be targeting Labour seats in leave-voting constituencies.But it also presents a big challenge for unionists who want the Irish sea border completely dismantled.How do they strike the balance between welcoming a deal that begins to eradicate the border while at the same time undermining the Brexit they championed?Do they adopt a purist or pragmatic approach?
What do unionists make of a possible new UK-EU deal?
A Queens University poll last week suggested unionist support for the Brexit deal - the Windsor Framework - has dropped significantly in the past year.Support for those described as "slightly unionist" fell from 51% to 26%That trend is likely to continue as more checks and controls come into force across the Irish sea border - like pet passports, which from next month will require those travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to obtain travel documents for their pets.But whatever the fallout, the Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) insist the UK must not concede to following EU rules whatever the impact on the the Irish sea border."The purpose of Brexit was to take back control and make our own laws," said TUV leader Jim Allister."If we embrace a veterinary agreement then we throw this away."He added: "Labour can try to further sabotage Brexit in this way but they will play a high price at the next general election."
Meanwhile, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) say a new agri-food deal would not provide the "silver bullet to the whole host of problems created by the application of EU law specifically in Northern Ireland only"."For example, any agreement would not cover, or resolve, issues around customs and other barriers to trade, not least in relation to product standards," A DUP spokesperson said.The party added that the government needs to be "radical in moving on from the Windsor Framework and not tinkering around the edges of it"."We continue to make the case for full restoration of Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom, including removing the application of EU law in our country and the internal Irish Sea Border it creates."
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) deputy leader Robbie Butler said if the UK and EU work to reduce the friction in trade then it would "cautiously welcome what amounts to an overdue recognition of what we have been advocating all along". However, he added that "warm words and rushed deals often leave Northern Ireland as an afterthought" and that any agreement that does not put Northern Ireland centrally in the UK market will "fail our people, our producers and our prosperity". He said the party will be "unapologetic in defending Northern Ireland's farmers, agri-businesses, and rural economy from the damage of needless economic borders". "Our prosperity depends on it - and so does the principle of a truly United Kingdom."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Between ‘rollover UK' and ‘retaliatory China': will EU hardball secure trade deal with US?
In Brussels' corridors of power, quiet optimism is growing that the EU's hardball strategy to secure a US trade deal is working. While Britain quickly moved to try to cushion the impact of Donald Trump's tariffs with a deal agreed last month – and US-Chinese relations are a tit-for-tat situation – the EU has taken a different stance. 'We are positioning ourselves between 'rollover UK' and 'retaliatory China',' said a Brussels source. The stakes are not just the £706bn in transatlantic trade between the EU and US but the fallout from what diplomats and businesses say is a dangerous assault on the global rules-based system that governs western democracy. 'The only thing that appeals to Trump is power. Amid all the nausea and uncertainty here, there is a significant chance the EU will go the whole way and not do a deal,' said a diplomat in the Belgian capital. 'If the EU doesn't stand up to Trump or demand the rigours of rules, the question will be: what is left of the international rules based system?' the source added, noting the risk to employment rights, free speech, social welfare and public care. The EU's steadfast strategy is high-risk, and has weeks to play out before the 90-day pause in Trump's threat to impose 20% tariffs on all EU imports ends in July. He has already slapped a 10% tariff on all exports, with more on autos and steel, which this week went to 50%. 'If in the end, if we are the only ones on the pitch, people will start to say we should have been more like the Chinese,' said one EU official, with demands for retaliation expected to arise 'very quickly from member states'. The biggest pothole in what threatens to be a bumpy road ahead may be a Nato summit on 24 June when Trump, who has shown visceral antipathy towards the EU, may find fault in what he considers freeloading allies. Right now, EU member states are united in their resolve not to capitulate in the face of his demands, which include the removal of non-tariff barriers such as food standards. 'What the US is doing has brought us together, and there's a sense of urgency of that cooperation within the 27 that is quite important,' says one diplomat. There is even a growing acceptance that US tariffs of more than 10% are a long-term reality. 'Ideally less than 10%, so it doesn't look like we have rolled over,' says one Brussels official. Before Trump took office for the second time the average tariff on US imports in the EU was about 2.5%. The EU's chief negotiator, Maroš Šefčovič, said on multiple occasions this week that he was 'optimistic' a deal would be done, but back at base, trade war preparations continue. 'We are keeping the gun on the shelf. We don't want to use it, but we want them to know it is there,' said one diplomat. Šefčovič said on Friday he had held another call with the US secretary of commerce, Howard Lutnick. 'Our time and effort fully invested, as delivering forward-looking solutions remains a top EU priority. Staying in permanent contact,' he wrote on X. Meanwhile, twin talks took place this week in Paris at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and in Washington with a team of EU officials led by Tomas Baert, trade adviser to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. Those talks helped 'clean the slate, clear the table', Šefčovič told a conference organised by the European Policy Centre, a thinktank, on Thursday in Brussels. He added that he had also discussed the continued threat of sectoral tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors with the US trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris. Šefčovič said his message was that the US and the EU had mutual interests in re-industrialisation on both sides of the Atlantic, and in minimising China's unstoppable rise in key sectors such as electric vehicles and steel. 'Any obstacle in the middle of the Atlantic would simply make them less competitive and more vulnerable. This is the diplomatic, political but also very technical discussions we are having,' he said. Up to now negotiations have been somewhat hampered by the parallel universe occupied by the US president, and White House and EU officials. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Last month, Trump, out of the blue, threatened and then unthreatened to slap a 50% tariff on all EU imports, claiming Brussels was dragging its feet 'to put it mildly'. 'This came as a surprise to Maroš, because he had been in talks since February,' said one source. 'But because this is an imperial court, it is the emperor who will decide when talks are happening.' The volatility in the transatlantic relationship on European business is unprecedented. 'I have been here 10 years and I have never seen this level of nervousness, not during the pandemic, not after the invasion of Ukraine,' said a director at one trade group representing dozens of multinationals in Brussels, who declined to be named. Luisa Santos, the deputy director general at Confederation of Business Europe, which represents 42 national business federations, said trade would, like water, find its course but investment could prove the collateral damage. 'The whole basis of trade is WTO [World Trade Organization] rules,' she said. 'We agreed on the rules and they were accepted the consequences. Now the rule is the power game: 'I will impose what I think is best for me, and the bigger players with more power determine the rules and that is a huge change.' Santos added: 'I think the biggest shock in Europe is that we were supposed to be the traditional allies. But now we are basically put on the same basket as China.' Kyle Martin, the vice-president of European affairs at the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, whose members include Boeing and Airbus, said tariffs would end a 45-year-old US-EU agreement that aviation construction, which relies on a global supply chain, was duty-free. A Boeing 787 gets its front fuselage from Italy, its wings from Japan and doors from France, with assembly at home in Seattle, he pointed out. 'I don't see this having a positive [outcome] for either Boeing or Airbus or any other manufacturer. Everyone will be impacted because everyone's got an interconnected supply chain.' But while negotiations with the US continue, new EU agreements with India, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Africa and Australia are also on the cards. Ultimately it is the profound shift in the world order that is bothering many in Brussels. The US was behaving 'like a very unevolved state', said one EU source, like a developing country that relied on customs duties for national revenue in the absence of income tax, corporate tax and VAT. 'Maybe this is what Trump wants, a smaller, leaner weaker state where everybody has to pay for themselves,' they said.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
This result shows the time has arrived for make-or-break move for SNP
We didn't need Professor Curtice to highlight that SNP fortunes haven't improved since the General Election. It was readily apparent to anyone who followed this SNP leadership contesting Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse as a supposed party of 'independence' and yet not relying on it to garner support. At a time when national polling for independence is reckoned to hover around 54%, Swinney's SNP managed to garner just 12% support from Hamilton's electorate (only 29% of those who actually voted). Doesn't this prove beyond any doubt he and his party are getting it woefully wrong? At a time when the independence movement is straining at the leash for real campaigning political leadership, itching to get the campaign into full swing, hasn't the SNP's campaign chief, Jamie Hepburn, signalled indy being kicked down the road once again when in Laura Pollock's report (June 6) he states: 'Next year, we're going into a General Election for the Scottish Parliament ... the fundamental question will be who's forming the next government ... who's going to be the next first minister ... either John Swinney or Anas Sarwar.' READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely There we have it. This SNP's clear intention is to just play regional politics, presumably to secure their own positions, rather than fight the 2026 election as the de facto referendum the movement demands and the polls suggest the public desires. I suspect the new strategy SNP may be heading towards claiming that the de facto referendum should be at the next General Election and promising to make it so ... just as long as we elect them to Holyrood next year so they can 'deliver' it. Well, let's head that one off at the pass. If 2026 is ignored as the legitimate platform for Scots to determine their national status, or fail to force the referendum our democratic rights deserve, then who doubts the SNP will be soundly defeated and the independence movement will need to start from scratch to fight for independence without them; trust in the SNP decimated and Scotland's independence prospects truly parked for another generation – victory for the Unionists? If Keir Starmer, as seems likely, is about to scapegoat Rachel Reeves to secure his position, isn't it time for the SNP to scapegoat their current leader and his influencers in order to elect a leader in time for 2026 who has independence at heart, has the drive to deliver it and can persuade 54% and rising of Scots that they can do so? Hasn't the Hamilton election result shown the time has arrived for, if no serious independence leadership and drive for it, then no SNP? Jim Taylor Scotland THE loss of the Hamilton by-election to the risibly inept 'Scottish' Labour – a party so devoid of ideas it could barely muster a coherent manifesto – is not merely a setback. It is a catastrophe of the SNP's own making, a fiasco that reeks of complacency, strategic idiocy and the kind of centrist dithering that has come to define John Swinney's leadership. This was an entirely avoidable humiliation. Instead of seizing the moment – with independence support now at a formidable sum – Swinney, that master of inertia, chose to dither. His response? A pledge to wait until 75% of Scots beg for freedom before lifting a finger. One wonders if he imagines history's great emancipators –Washington, Bolívar, even the wretched Garibaldi – paused to consult focus groups before acting. When Starmer, that most unctuous of Westminster careerists, declared he would block any independence referendum, Swinney's silence was deafening. Not a word of defiance, not a hint of resistance to the colonial farce of Section 30. Instead, he opted to align with Labour – a party whose sole distinction from Reform is a marginally more polished veneer of hypocrisy. Both are Unionist to the core, united in their mission to siphon Scotland's wealth southward while offering nothing but condescension in return. The campaign itself was a masterclass in misdirection. Rather than rallying the independence movement with a bold vision, Swinney fixated on Reform – as if thwarting Nigel Farage's band of reactionary clowns was the defining struggle of Scottish nationalism. The result? A muddled, defensive mess that left voters uninspired and Labour undeservedly triumphant. Worse still, Swinney has perpetuated the worst excesses of the Sturgeon era: the cult of secrecy, the slavish deference to corporate interests (see: Flamingo Land's desecration of Loch Lomond) and the systematic sidelining of anyone with a spine. Sturgeon's legacy was to ensure that no competent successor could emerge – only loyalists and mediocrities, of which Swinney is the apotheosis. The truth is stark: the SNP have no plan for independence. No strategy beyond grovelling to Westminster for permission to hold a vote – a humiliation masquerading as diplomacy. It is a spectacle so pitiful it verges on self-parody. Swinney must go. Not with a whimper, but with the swift, decisive exit his failures demand. The independence movement deserves leaders who grasp that freedom is seized, not negotiated – and who possess the courage to act accordingly. Until then, the SNP's decline will continue, and Scotland's potential will remain shackled by the timid and the unimaginative. Alan Hinnrichs Dundee
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
The Daily T: Musk v Trump, Yusuf v Reform — inside the right's fight with itself
It's been a tumultuous twenty four hours on the right, both in the UK and in the US. Firstly, Reform chairman Zia Yusuf resigned from the party yesterday evening, claiming that 'working to get a Reform government elected' was not 'a good use of my time'. Then, Donald Trump and Elon Musk's row deepened further, with Musk calling for the president to be impeached and claiming that Trump was was 'named in the Epstein files'. Trump for his part said Musk was 'wearing thin' and had 'lost his mind'. Former Conservative blogger turned Reform activist Tim Montgomerie joins Camilla Tominey and Gordon Rayner to reflect on Zia Yusuf's departure from Reform, plus they speak to one of Reform's most recent defectors from Labour, Scottish local councillor Jamie McGuire, about the party's results in the Hamilton by-election where it came third behind Labour and the SNP. They also catch up with Daily Telegraph Senior US Correspondent Rob Crilly about the escalating war of words between two of the world's most powerful men.
