Starmer's EU ‘reset' risks pleasing no one
The text of today's agreement is still being scrutinised – yet the risk is it ends up pleasing neither Remainers nor Brexiteers. Both the UK and EU have agreed to 'work towards' a youth mobility scheme, but there is no detail on a cap or timeframe. Britons will be allowed to use e-gates in the EU but the language is caveated, suggesting they are only to be used 'where appropriate'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Sanctions-hit Indian refiner Nayara turns to dark fleet, tanker data shows
NEW DELHI, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Indian refiner Nayara Energy, backed by Russia and under European Union sanctions, is relying on a dark fleet to import oil and transport refined fuels, according to shipping reports and LSEG flows. Nayara, which controls about 8% of India's 5.2 million barrel-per-day refining capacity, has been struggling to transport fuel since being placed under EU sanctions in July, a move that prompted shippers to back out, forcing the refiner to cut its crude runs. India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, abides by UN sanctions and not unilateral actions, allowing refiners to import oil and ship products in vessels also under EU sanctions. This month, Nayara has imported at least seven cargoes of Russian oil, including on sanctions-hit vessels Centurion, Mars 6, Pushpa, Horae and Devika, formerly known as Apar, according to shipping reports and LSEG data. All were carrying about 700,000 barrels of Russian flagship Urals crude, the data shows. Nayara did not respond to an email seeking comment. Prior to the sanctions, Nayara was selling about 70% of the refined fuels produced at its 400,000 bpd day Vadinar refinery in western Gujarat state through its local network of more than 6,600 fuel stations, and exporting the rest. Nayara, majority owned by Russian entities including Rosneft ( opens new tab, is seeking government help to secure ships and maintain stable operations at the refinery, where it has cut runs to 70-80% of capacity. A shipping source said Indian lines that undertake overseas voyages are not willing to carry oil and refined products for Nayara, while an official at a company that regularly shipped Nayara's refined products said they could not get insurance cover for their vessels in such cases. Another shipping source said Russian entities were helping Nayara arrange ships. According to LSEG trade flows, the company has used the Next, Tempest Dream, Leruo, Nova, Varg, Sard and Uriel - all under EU sanctions - to ship refined fuels, mainly gasoline and gasoil. Some of the vessels were renamed after being placed under sanctions. Evgeniy Griva, Russia's deputy trade representative to India, on Wednesday said Nayara is getting oil supplies from Russian oil major Rosneft and is not facing problems.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
National Trust among charities warning Keir Starmer they face being 'crippled' by new consumer rights rules
The National Trust is among a number of charities warning Sir Keir Starmer they face being 'crippled' by new consumer rights rules. They have expressed fears that recent legislation has created a 'loophole' allowing abuse of their membership schemes. In a letter to the Prime Minister, the charities outlined how provisions under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act might see them lose out on critical funding. Under the legislation, Britons are entitled to cancel a subscription contract during a two–week 'cooling–off' period. The Act is intended to crackdown on 'subscription traps' where consumers are misled into signing up for a subscription through a 'free trial' or reduced price offer. But the National Trust and other charities said this threatens their business models, which sees them earn millions of pounds each year through membership schemes. They warned the new rules allow people to sign up as members and enjoy benefits, such as free entry to museums and sites, for a 14–day period before claiming refunds. For example, a family of two adults and two children could visit Waddesdon Manor and Cliveden, an hour's drive away from each other in Buckinghamshire, before resigning their National Trust membership and recouping the fee. This would normally cost the family £133.50 for the two visits, while an annual National Trust family membership costs £168.60. The signatories of the letter to Sir Keir, seen by The Times, were led by Hilary McGrady, the National Trust's director–general. It was also signed by heads of the Tate, Historic Royal Palaces, Victoria & Albert Museum, the Royal Horticultural Society, the Royal British Legion and Wildlife Trusts. In their warning about the impact of the Act, they wrote: 'Not only has it put at risk our ability to claim gift aid on memberships, but it creates onerous new burdens. 'The proposed cooling–off period would create a loophole that could allow people to join charities as members and enjoy benefits, such as free entry to sites, for a two–week period before claiming substantial refunds for the rest of the year. 'This threatens to cripple the very future value of membership itself as a functional model of income generation for charities with visitor models – currently worth hundreds of millions [of pounds] to charities across the UK every year.' The Act was introduced by the previous Conservative government and the rules are being put in place by Labour next year. The Department for Business and Trade outlined in November how 'subscription traps' are instances where consumers are frequently misled into signing up for a subscription through a 'free trial' or reduced price offer'. 'In some cases if the consumer doesn't cancel the trial within a set amount of time, they are often automatically transferred to a costly subscription payment plan,' it added. 'Subscriptions can be for anything from magazines to beauty boxes, with many subscriptions having complicated or inconvenient cancellation processes such as phone lines with long waits and restrictive opening hours that can leave consumers feeling trapped.' A National Trust spokesperson said: 'Up to now membership has been treated as a charitable donation by law and this is part of a long–held recognition that UK charities are fundamentally different from commercial businesses. 'Charities are currently facing sustained financial pressures, due to the difficult economic climate. 'This legislation would add to that cost burden and see more charities having to reduce their vital services. 'Just last month, the Government made a firm commitment through the Civil Society Covenant to support our sector: closing this loophole would be a clear demonstration of that commitment.' A Government spokesman said: 'Our plans to protect consumers from rip–off subscriptions will not unfairly affect charities, and we continue to engage closely with them to understand their concerns.'
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Revealed: Starmer's EU fish surrender could cost up to £6bn
Sir Keir Starmer's Brexit reset deal risks handing the EU up to £6bn of British fish, official data suggest. Under the agreement struck by Labour in May, EU fishermen will get guaranteed access to UK waters for another 12 years, until 2038. The Telegraph can reveal that this could be worth up to £6bn to the EU in British fish, based on estimates provided to ministers before the deal was signed. Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, has said he will rip up the deal if he becomes prime minister. He told The Telegraph: 'It is truly astonishing that we have given away a huge sum of money. 'We've massively damaged our own industry, stopping future investment in return for absolutely nothing, and our coastal communities feel totally betrayed.' In February, three months before the agreement was struck, officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provided ministers with an analysis of the 'economic benefits and concerns of re-negotiating fisheries policies with the EU'. The Telegraph has seen an extract of the memo, released under freedom of information laws, which states that the EU took between £400m and £500m of landings from UK waters in 2023. This suggests that, by extending EU access for another 12 years, Sir Keir has signed away up to £6bn worth of British fish. The Government rejected the estimate, insisting it did not make sense to project the figure from 2023 on to future years because of potential variations in quotas and market prices. While Sir Keir guaranteed the EU access to British waters until 2038, the UK retains the right to negotiate the amount of fish that Brussels can land each year. That means it is not possible to predict exactly how much EU fishermen will take from UK waters on an annual basis, making the £6bn figure a rough projection. However, Mike Cohen, the chief executive officer of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, described it as a 'fair and realistic' estimate. He told The Telegraph: 'The EU has consistently taken around £500m of fish from UK waters annually for a number of years now. 'There is no realistic prospect of renegotiating quota shares, because the only bargaining chip the UK had to negotiate with was access to our waters and the Government has given that away. 'In reality, the only way that the EU will take less value than that is if the fish stocks shrink and quotas are reduced for everyone. £6bn over 12 years is a fair and realistic estimate in my opinion.' The memo seen by The Telegraph, sent to Steve Reed, the Environment Secretary, and Daniel Zeichner, the food security minister, stated that the ability to fish in UK waters was 'hugely significant' for the EU fleet. It added: 'We know around 1,500 EU vessels have licenses to fish in the UK EEZ as of January 2025, and that about 17 per cent of the EU's total landings volume and 7-9 per cent (£400m-£500m) of their total landings value comes from UK waters (2023).' The document also reveals that ministers were told Britain could benefit from reducing EU access to UK waters, albeit only by a 'small' amount. It stated: 'There will possibly be small positive impacts to the UK if access to UK waters was reduced for EU vessels, notably the 6-12nm zone... 'Fishers could be more profitable if a reduction in competition means reduced cost/effort to catch their fish. For UK fishers in the area, this is [a] clear deliverable, and they will likely feel they are better based on [a] combination of economic and socio-political factors.' Mr Cohen said he would be 'fascinated to know' who came up with the suggestion that reducing EU access would only provide a 'small' benefit to the UK, describing it as 'poor advice'. He added: 'It is certainly not our view. If EU boats were excluded, we would have significantly more freedom to manage the fish resources in our waters, to ensure their long term sustainability. 'It would also mean that there was far more room for UK boats to work in: something that will become an increasing problem with the government's plans for enormous expansions of offshore wind farms and marine protected areas. 'This would have benefited our smaller inshore fleet most of all: the sector that has the best potential for sustainable growth.' Coastal communities 'betrayed' Downing Street has said the fishing deal will add £9bn to the economy by 2040 by linking the UK more closely to the EU's food, veterinary and energy markets. But critics described it as a betrayal of Britain's coastal communities, who were promised that Labour would take back control of UK waters from Brussels as part of Brexit. Sir John Redwood, the former Tory environment minister, said: 'This needless giveaway of our fish will cost us more than just the lost £6bn of fish sales over 12 years. There are all the lost jobs in fishing, supporting fishing boats and food processing as well as the lost tax revenues.' A government spokesman said: 'This is a made up figure and not based on any policy that we have with the EU, or would have had under the previous deal. 'Under the previous Brexit deal, EU boats were provided de facto guarantees to UK waters beyond 2026. 'The deal we have secured means we can continue to decide and agree annually the amount EU vessels can catch in our waters, and gives UK fishing communities long-term certainty and stability.' Government sources said it was not possible to forecast the value of EU catches in UK waters for 2026–2038, as this depends on annual quota negotiations, catches of non-quota species and market prices.
