logo
Keir Starmer will drag us back to the EU however he can

Keir Starmer will drag us back to the EU however he can

Yahoo07-02-2025

'Brexit was catastrophic for the UK, for our communities and for the next generation,' wrote Keir Starmer in 2016. So unshakable was his conviction that he resigned from Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet over it, campaigned tirelessly for a second referendum, and voted at every opportunity to thwart the Conservative government's attempts to deliver Brexit.
Now, installed in Downing Street, he is poised to ignore the will of the people and undo Brexit by stealth.
Starmer, of course, will say all the right Brexity things like 'immigration is too high', 'We won't join the Customs Union', and so on. He knows that the British people, having suffered the indignity of being dismissed as xenophobes and little Englanders for daring to vote for independence, are not easily fooled. But Starmer has never been one to let principle get in the way of power. His long game is clear: Brexit must be diluted, dismantled, and ultimately destroyed, all while keeping up a facade of pragmatism.
The EU has form when it comes to disregarding inconvenient democratic outcomes. The French and the Dutch overwhelmingly rejected the EU Constitution in 2005, only for it to be repackaged and forced through under the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish were made to vote again in 2009 after initially rejecting both the Nice and Lisbon Treaties.
In 2015, the Greeks voted by 61 per cent to reject EU-imposed austerity measures, yet the bureaucrats in Brussels crushed them into submission regardless. Imagine Tusk and Barnier's delight if, in 2026, a decade after our 'divorce', we end up renewing vows. The pattern is clear: in the eyes of the EU, democracy is only valid when it delivers the 'correct' result and with Starmer in charge, they have a willing accomplice.
Now, Starmer is cosying up to Brussels once again. As he attends the EU Council Leaders' Summit at the Palais d'Egmont—the very building where Ted Heath signed away our sovereignty in 1972 – the symbolism could not be more ominous. He speaks of 'Defence Co-operation', but we know what that really means: deeper entanglement with the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, a slow creep towards subjugation under Brussels' decision-making.
The damage Starmer could do is immense. Talk of a new UK-EU Security and Defence arrangement might sound innocuous, even beneficial, but it is anything but. NATO already provides the security architecture necessary to safeguard the UK and its allies. Post-Brexit, Britain has strengthened its defence partnerships with AUKUS (the nuclear submarine agreement with the US and Australia) and GCAP (the next-generation fighter jet programme with Japan and Italy). These are real, substantive alliances that reinforce British sovereignty.
By contrast, deeper integration with EU security structures would do nothing but entangle Britain in the bloc's bureaucratic and ineffectual defence mechanisms, diluting our ability to act independently.
Regulatory alignment is another looming threat. The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, now before Parliament, will open the door to the UK once again shackling itself to EU rules on product standards, environmental policies, and consumer regulations. Rachel Reeves has already floated the idea of 'dynamic alignment', which would mean Britain slavishly following Brussels' regulations without a seat at the table. This would render Brexit meaningless, stripping us of the ability to shape our own economic destiny. Worse still, it would torpedo any prospect of a UK-US trade deal, one of the great prizes of Brexit.
The failure of the Conservatives to properly repeal EU laws and prevent backsliding has already been a missed opportunity; Starmer's government could seal Brexit's fate.
And then there is migration. Despite the Labour Party's new rhetoric on border control, history tells us where their real loyalties lie. The idea of a UK-EU 'Returns Deal' is being discussed, allowing Britain to send some asylum seekers back to Europe. But the price will be steep: an acceptance of free movement of workers, taking in an EU-imposed quota of asylum seekers, or granting Brussels further access to British fishing waters.
None of this would be acceptable to the British public. Yet, given Labour's past enthusiasm for mass migration, can anyone truly believe Starmer's tough talk will translate into action?
The reality is that while Britain has formally left the EU, we are still far from realising the full benefits of Brexit. Thousands of EU-derived regulations continue to stifle British business. The City is warning that without further deregulation, banks will relocate operations to the US. Legal migration remains at unsustainable levels. Northern Ireland is still partially within the EU's regulatory orbit, making a UK-US free trade agreement almost impossible.
The job is not finished. The foundations of Brexit have been laid, but the structure remains incomplete.
Starmer may present himself as a pragmatist, but he is an ideologue at heart. He believes in EU supremacy, in international courts overruling British sovereignty, in rule by bureaucrats rather than by the people. If the past decade has shown us anything, it is that Brexit is an ongoing battle, not a settled matter. If Starmer gets his way, the last nine years will have been for nothing. So we must beware the Brexit Reset, beware the reversal of democracy and beware the betrayal of the 17.4 million who voted to leave.
The fight for a truly sovereign Britain must continue.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Starmer and Reynolds meet US commerce secretary in push to implement trade deal
Starmer and Reynolds meet US commerce secretary in push to implement trade deal

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Starmer and Reynolds meet US commerce secretary in push to implement trade deal

Sir Keir Starmer has met the US commerce secretary as the Government continues to push for its American trade deal to come into force. The Prime Minister dropped in on a meeting between Howard Lutnick and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds in Downing Street on Tuesday. Mr Lutnick was in London for talks with China on resolving the trade war between Washington and Beijing, and Mr Reynolds took the opportunity to meet him in person to push for the UK-US trade deal announced last month to be implemented as soon as possible. The meeting follows talks between the Business Secretary and US trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris last week. Under the terms of the agreement announced by Sir Keir and Donald Trump, the US will implement import quotas that will effectively eliminate tariffs on British steel and cut the levy on vehicles to 10%. But the deal has yet to be implemented and tariffs on both steel and cars remain at 25%, although the UK has been spared the increase on steel duties to 50% that Mr Trump imposed on the rest of the world last week. In a post on social media, Mr Reynolds said he had discussed 'progress on our trade deal – including UK autos and steel' with Mr Lutnick. UK officials remain hopeful that the deal will be implemented soon, but Tuesday's meeting does not appear to have moved the issue beyond both sides agreeing the need to move quickly. Speaking in the Commons last week, Sir Keir said he was 'very confident' that tariffs would come down in line with the deal 'within a very short time'. Implementing the deal will require the UK to pass legislation, likely to involve regulations rather than a full Act of Parliament, while the US will also need to create a legal mechanism to bring steel and vehicle quotas into effect.

The police must do better, not more
The police must do better, not more

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

The police must do better, not more

Writing in The Telegraph on Monday, two prominent officers lamented the current state of policing in Britain. Nick Smart, president of the Police Superintendents' Association, and Tiff Lynch, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said morale had been crushed by a broken system. 'The service is in crisis,' they wrote. Pay was too low, work was too hard and the police are facing further real terms cuts in spending when the Chancellor makes her dispositions known today. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, was reportedly battling with the Treasury until the 11th hour trying to get more money for policing but failed. She has been under pressure from senior officers for weeks to get a better deal. They said there may have been more money and more officers but these trends had not kept pace with the rise in the population. Yet overall per-capita police numbers are now close to record levels. We used to have far fewer police officers and yet they were far more visible. Their presence on the streets was designed to fulfil Robert Peel's first principle of policing, which is to keep order and prevent crime. Police chiefs maintain that they direct scarce resources where they are most needed and yet this is impossible to square with stories of half a dozen officers being sent to arrest someone for sending an injudicious tweet to a school website. A news report just this week is emblematic of the problem: the couple who went to reclaim their own stolen car because the police refused to do anything about it. There have been many cases of bikes put up for sale by thieves and owners having to recover their property because the police were not interested. Our politicians must share the blame for loading the police with tasks they never used to have by passing laws that require any complaint of hurt feelings, however minor or vindictively made, to be investigated. But the police seem content to prioritise these non-crimes over real ones like burglary, thefts of mobile phones or shoplifting. The problem the police have when demanding more money is that the public no longer feels they make the right choices with the resources they have. Nowadays, they are less a force for law and order than a glorified community service, expected to deal with society's ills rather than crime. As a matter of urgency, they need to forge a new social contract with the people they serve. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Final decision due on Porton Down science labs
Final decision due on Porton Down science labs

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Final decision due on Porton Down science labs

A decision is finally expected on whether to move hundreds of government science jobs out of Wiltshire to Essex. The Health Security Agency at Porton Down researches how to tackle the world's most infectious diseases, and prepare the UK for future pandemics. Over the last 15 years plans have been worked up to relocate its 900 workers to new facilities in Harlow, but the estimated costs have spiralled - ministers expect a final decision in Wednesday's government spending review. The MP covering Porton Down - Conservative John Glen - said: "It's taken 10 years to still be in doubt whether this should still happen and the costs have gone up six-fold." The National Audit Office reported the cost of the whole project is estimated to be £3.2bn, a figure more than 500% higher than the initial forecast of £530m. When it was officially announced in 2015 that the labs would move to Harlow, Essex, the MP there at the time said he was pleased and it would "bring thousands of jobs". Speaking to the BBC this week, Mr Glen said the new build would be "dressed up" as a world-class hub. "But Porton Down already is world-class," he said. "We've already got the world's best scientists doing amazing collaborative work." More news stories for Wiltshire Listen to the latest news for Wiltshire He added staff get paid to do work for other countries, including the US, and when unions asked workers there several years ago, most did not want to move. He said: "There's an established pattern of activity there. We do need more investment but not the extent of building and refurbishing an unsuitable lab in Harlow." Scientific work has been going on at Porton Down for 100 years, but much the infrastructure is old. However, Mr Glen said there had been "additional investment" because of the Covid-19 pandemic, so the government needs to "be realistic". "This is an opportunity to save money, to reverse George Osborne's ambitious decision but still invest in science and an established rhythm of work," he said. No construction work has started at the Harlow site, which is being maintained by staff to keep it secure. The government said it had been considering options and whether building a new facility is still viable. It estimates if the Harlow centre is built, it will not open before 2036 - some 15 years behind schedule. When Health Secretary Wes Streeting was asked about the possible move in March, he said: "[This] has been running around the system so long that it is now used in a case study for senior civil servant recruitment," he said. "The worst decision is indecision. "It has plagued us for too long and I hope we can soon report back to the house with a decision on that for everyone's benefit." Follow BBC Wiltshire on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to us on email or via WhatsApp on 0800 313 4630. Deadly pathogen research hub remains unbuilt despite £400m spend Work paused on dangerous pathogens research facility Site purchase promises thousands of jobs Public Health lab move confirmed Can this laboratory help stop the next pandemic?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store