Questions grow over true cost of UK-EU deal as Starmer stays silent
By
Keir Starmer was last night under pressure to come clean about the bill for his controversial Brexit 'surrender'. The Prime Minister repeatedly ducked questions in Parliament about how much Britain will pay the EU for his deal amid speculation it will run to hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
During clashes in the Commons, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch (pictured) said Sir Keir had not said 'a single word... about the money that we will now be sending to Brussels'. While Tory MP Dame Harriett Baldwin said it was time for the PM to set out 'how much UK taxpayers' money is he willing to hand over to the EU in order to sign up to its protectionist demands'.
Sir Keir admitted that the deal will involve the UK making a 'proportionate contribution' to the EU but refused to say how much it would be. Tory grandee Sir Bernard Jenkin said the PM was 'submitting to EU regulations without any control and starting to pay money back to the European Union – he is giving up control over our laws and restoring payments to the European Union'. He predicted Labour would 'pay a bitter political price for this betrayal'. The PM, however, insisted his deal would be 'good for our country and good for the economy'.
Downing Street denied the PM had signed a blank cheque to the EU but said the implementation of parts of the deal is still being negotiated. The agreement, announced on Monday, commits the UK to rejoining the EU's Erasmus+ scheme for young people. The cost of this has previously been estimated at more than £200million. But the UK must also make an 'appropriate financial contribution' to help with the EU's costs in monitoring Britain's compliance with the bloc's rules in areas like food and farming standards.
Britain will also have to pay for its firms to access the EU's new £125billion defence procurement programme. But Sir Keir insisted that Britain will not be 'paying into the EU budget in the way that EU members do', with payments instead tied directly to benefits. No 10 said the financial cost of the deal would be dwarfed by the benefits, which it estimates will add £9billion to the economy by 2040. The PM was also boosted by an intervention from Morrisons' chief executive Rami Baitieh, who said the deal would 'ease a source of pressure on food prices'. In the Commons, Eurosceptic MPs condemned the deal.
Mrs Badenoch said the deal was 'bad for bills; it is bad for jobs; and it is bad for borders'. She condemned the decision to extend EU fishing access to British waters for another 12 years as a 'sellout'. And she said the decision to permanently align with the EU's rules in areas like agriculture was a 'total capitulation', adding: 'The Prime Minister is going to pay the EU to abide by laws that we have no say on.' Tory MP Mark Francois said: 'The British people voted peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union, so why has the Prime Minister surrendered that right and made us a rule-taker from the EU once again?'
Sir Keir described the warning as 'nonsense' and insisted that the UK 'will have a role in shaping any future rules'. He said the deal was just a 'first step', adding that Labour hoped to 'take our co-operation and co-ordination further, step by step.' But he appeared to rule out rejoining the EU's customs union, saying that would cut across other recent trade deals with India and the U.S., adding: 'I am not prepared to rip up the benefits that we have negotiated in those deals'.
In Brussels, EU diplomats celebrated, with one telling the BBC: 'The deal is balanced – arguably with favourable terms for the EU – and simply shows that splendid isolation is not an option in today's climate.' The deal has provoked a furious backlash from the fishing industry, with senior figures describing it as a 'horror show'. Pictured: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer (L) and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (R) leave after holding a press conference following the UK-EU summit at the Lancaster House in London, Britain, 19 May 2025.
But Environment Secretary Steve Reed (pictured) claimed it was a 'reasonably good deal' for the sector. He said ministers had resisted pressure from Brussels to allow even more access for EU trawlers and that the deal should spell the end of the bloc's ban on British shellfish.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
35 minutes ago
- Reuters
Kyiv rejects Russia's claims that Ukraine is delaying exchange of soldiers' bodies
KYIV, June 7 (Reuters) - Russia's claims that Ukraine is delaying exchange of soldiers' bodies are untrue, Ukrainian officials said on Saturday, urging Moscow to stop "playing dirty games" and return to constructive work. Kremlin aide Vladimir Medinsky said on Saturday that Ukraine had unexpectedly postponed exchanging prisoners of war and accepting the bodies of killed soldiers for an indefinite period. Russia and Ukraine held the second round of peace talks in Istanbul on Monday where they agreed to exchange more prisoners - focusing on the youngest and most severely wounded - and to return the bodies of 12,000 dead soldiers. "Today's statements by the Russian side do not correspond to reality or to previous agreements on either the exchange of prisoners or the repatriation of bodies," Ukraine's state-run Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War said on the Telegram messenger. It said that the agreement on the repatriation of the bodies had indeed been reached, but that no date had been agreed upon and that "the Russian side had resorted to unilateral actions" that had not been agreed within the framework of the process. Medinsky said Russia had also handed over to Ukraine the first list of 640 prisoners of war, categorised as "wounded, seriously ill and young people," in order to begin the exchange. Ukraine, in turn, stated that it had also handed over the names for exchange, while Russia's lists did not correspond to the agreed approach as to which prisoners would be prioritised in the exchange.
Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Children could be banned from spending more than two hours on any one phone app and blocked from social media after 10pm in new anti-doomscrolling measures
The government is considering measures to ban children from spending more than two hours on any one mobile phone app at a time. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is mulling a move to cap the amount of time per app youngsters can spend on their phone as part of a swathe of measures designed to reduce 'doomscrolling'. The package could also include preventing children from accessing social media apps, such as TikTok or Snapchat, after 10pm and during school hours. 'My approach will nail down some of the safety challenges that people face online, but also start to embrace those measures that deliver a much healthier life for children online,' Mr Kyle told the Mirror. 'That's what I want young people to have, a developmental safe and nourishing childhood online, just as we strive to for young people offline.' He is focused on exploring how curfews and restrictions on accessibility to apps as a starting point and is aware such measures may not solve the problem entirely. The MP for Hove and Portslade has reportedly held discussions with former and current employees of social media sites, who are open to the idea of preventing access to apps at night or during school. They are also said to be willing to restrict how long children can use an app for, by blocking access once they have reached a certain time limit. There have been suggestions this could be up to two hours. However, Mr Kyle has not yet made a decision on what age bracket these changes could apply to, according to The Mirror. He is also reportedly exploring raising the age at which children consent for their personal data to be processed by online sites. This currently applies to youngsters aged 13 and above, although ministers could raise this to 16. Mr Kyle has previously said that he has taken a keen interest in TikTok's recent introduction of various tools to limit screen time. These include a 10pm curfew for under-16s, which features the device screen being taken over and calming music played, although the tool can be dismissed to continue using the app. Another tool, Time Away, allows parents to set specific times that TikTok is available on their teen's devices. Children can request extra time to remain on the app, but their parents must approve it. Mr Kyle said he wanted to see evidence of how these tools are helping young people before implementing anything, but said he was especially interested in anything that will 'empower parents' to control how long their children are spending on social media platforms. Experts have long cited social media as a factor that can disrupt young people's sleep, relationships and socialisation skills. Data from the Millennium Cohort study, published last January, revealed 48 per cent of 16 to 18-year-olds felt they had lost control over how much time they spent online. A team at the University of Cambridge examined data from the study which tracks the lives of 19,000 Britons born in 2000-2002. When those in the cohort were aged between 16 and 18, they were asked about their social media use. The survey revealed 48 per cent of the 7,000 respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: 'I think I am addicted to social media.' Girls were most affected with 57 per cent agreeing, compared with 37 per cent of boys, according to the data reported by the Guardian.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The closing of a local hair salon tells you why Britain is going bust
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will stand up in the House and announce her latest plans for saving the country from bankruptcy. Somehow, she will have to produce plausible remedies for a crisis that seems insoluble: how to deal with catastrophic levels of government debt when there are endless demands for more public spending including a brand new commitment to provide more funding for defence. Having ruled out tax rises that clearly impinge directly on what they call 'working people' – income tax, VAT and employee National Insurance contributions – Labour has made this situation more complicated. But, perversely, they have chosen to make it even worse by pushing many of the most productive contributors to the economy out of business. The Labour Government, by putting supposed ideological solidarity over economic reality, has created the perfect formula for the failure of precisely the business sector which contributes most to national vitality and growth. Let me offer an illustration in the hope that it might prove instructive to the present and any future Chancellor. A hairdressing salon that I know in a prosperous North London neighbourhood closed for good several weeks ago. It had been at its current location for over thirty years and was so popular that it often took days to get an appointment. After lockdown it recovered well with its loyal customers delighted to return. The emergence of the four day working week meant that Fridays became as busy as Saturdays and the salon was humming. So what went wrong? The owner was hit simultaneously by the increases in the minimum wage and employer NICS. Added to ever-increasing energy costs (exacerbated by green levies), this burden finally broke them. Even though they were a well-run thriving business, they could not survive. Sadly all of the junior staff and trainees were laid off. Given the economic climate now, they will struggle to find similar jobs anywhere else so they will not be paying any tax for the indefinite future and will almost certainly have to claim unemployment benefit: a double loss for the Treasury. The salon as a company has gone so it will no longer be paying corporation tax. The senior stylists who have carried on working privately are now self-employed which means they can, perfectly legitimately, claim all their work expenses against tax – so they will pay less income tax than they did under PAYE when they were employees. You get the picture. The net effect of the Government's measures has been to reduce the tax take for their own coffers and increase unemployment among people starting out in their working lives whose chances are further damaged by the ridiculous stipulation that they must have full rights to secure employment from the day they are hired. What happened to one hair salon might not seem all that significant to the nation's future. But this pattern is being repeated in small businesses – particularly the ones that provide employment to young people starting out in working life – in countless numbers. Retail shops, building services and hospitality outlets are cutting staff and failing to hire new recruits because the cost of employing them is back breaking. As a result, they are not expanding and developing their businesses as they might have – and so not contributing to the growth of the economy in the significant way that small businesses, with their inherent dynamism and industriousness, once did. Labour, in its supposed determination to support 'working people' has created a doom loop in which fewer people will be joining the workforce and the consequent reduction in tax revenue will make the government even less able to meet the limitless demands of the welfare system as well as pay off its debts. Needless to say, there have been some obvious winners in the Labour dynamic: public sector employees have had their mouths stuffed with gold not only because Labour is historically inclined to favour the unions which represent them but because they can threaten disruption on a scale that reduces any complaining chorus from the small business sector to an inconsequential squeak. But there is more to it than that, in ideological terms: business generally, and small business in particular, are seen as inherently self-interested enterprises. Because they have been created, developed and run by private individuals in the hope of making a profit, they must be morally suspect and less worthy of support than the services that the state funds and operates for the general good of society. Carry this to its logical conclusion and it becomes admirable to penalise people who want to profit from other people's need for their services in order to pay for the provision of services dispensed 'fairly' (and without profit) by the government. You know where this ends, don't you? The most innovative, resourceful, determined individuals who might have developed new ways of creating real wealth and employing more people in experimental ways have impossible demands put on them which threaten their survival or, at the very least, make their continued existence as difficult as possible. They are encumbered with inflexible employment conditions which might possibly be appropriate for huge public sector organisations but are death to experimental emerging enterprises. Their tax arrangements are made so horrendously complicated and difficult to master that expensive accountancy advice becomes essential. I know self-employed sole traders in the creative industries who would like to enlarge their practice but are terrified of crossing the income threshold that would require VAT registration which now involves coping with Making Tax Digital – a peculiarly sadistic form of monitoring which, as HMRC has just discovered in its attempt to introduce it in self-employed income tax, can be susceptible to cyber hacking. Yes indeed, create a business on your own and try to make it a success – just try. The Government, and its agents in HMRC who can't even be bothered to answer the phone, will make your life as difficult as possible. And the more obstacles they put in the way to prevent you from flourishing and expanding, the more virtuous they will feel even though you and the real wealth that you create are the only things that might have saved them.
