Labour is Determined to Undermine Brexit

Now It Is Finally Getting Its Way

Boris Johnson and I fought tooth and nail to liberate the UK from EU control – now Starmer threatens to undo all our hard work

It was October 2020. Britain was descending into yet another Covid lockdown, and my negotiations with the EU were becoming increasingly mired in difficulties. I was preparing for a video conference with Michel Barnier, their chief negotiator, and we were absolutely incensed by an extraordinary statement recently issued by EU leaders instructing Britain to make the “necessary moves” to reach an agreement in line with the EU’s position. The European Union appeared utterly determined to maintain their vice-like grip on our nation.

Barnier appeared on the screen. From my office overlooking Downing Street, surrounded by my dedicated team, I informed him in no uncertain terms that if this represented the EU’s official stance, then further discussion was pointless, and there was absolutely no reason for him to travel to London for the next round of talks, or indeed any future negotiations whatsoever. Barnier was completely taken aback. I was compelled to reiterate the message several times before the gravity of our position became apparent to him. We promptly briefed the press: “Get ready for no deal.”

Within seven days, the EU had performed a complete about-face. Barnier recited a carefully crafted statement in the European Parliament which our team had meticulously composed for him and agreed with Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. The EU was suddenly open to compromise after all. They would work tirelessly to identify solutions. The negotiations were reinstated, the work intensified considerably, and eventually an agreement was reached.

Taking a firm stance produces results.

On Monday, that very same von der Leyen will meet Sir Keir Starmer to formalise Britain’s “reset” with the EU. Regrettably, there appears to be little evidence of similar firmness from the British contingent this time around. All will be characterised by excessive cordiality and congeniality. Von der Leyen will undoubtedly repeat some of her effusive praise for Sir Keir from last month’s Time magazine feature. She can certainly afford to do so. For the sobering reality is that Britain will have relinquished a great deal whilst securing precious little in return.

How We Arrived at This Juncture

It can prove rather challenging to discern precisely what’s at stake. Let us begin by examining recent history. The vast majority of Britain’s political class was profoundly stunned by the referendum outcome. However, once Theresa May effectively forfeited the 2017 general election, they recognised an opportunity to maintain Britain’s close alignment with EU legislation and political institutions – clinging to the familiar for fear of embracing the unknown.

Meanwhile, Brexiteers swiftly coalesced around the conviction that Brexit would be meaningless unless implemented properly and comprehensively. There was absolutely no benefit in withdrawing from the EU if we subsequently permitted them to continue dictating our laws. We, Great Britain and Northern Ireland collectively, needed to extricate ourselves completely – from customs arrangements, trade agreements, budgetary contributions, the EU court and all associated legislation – if we were genuinely to chart our own distinctive course.

Since that pivotal moment, Brexit has fundamentally concerned where precisely to position ourselves along this spectrum. At one extreme lies continued EU domination: a nation perpetually constrained by Brussels’s regulations, with no voice in their formulation – effectively reduced to vassal status. At the opposite end stands genuine freedom and independence: a Britain that establishes its own legislation according to its own priorities. This has constituted the primary battleground.

Thus far, three significant conflicts have unfolded across this contested terrain. The “reset” represents the fourth such confrontation. The initial battle occurred during May’s premiership. She attempted to withdraw formally whilst simultaneously remaining subject to numerous EU regulations. Her deeply flawed Northern Ireland agreement permanently left the province under EU trading rules regardless of circumstances, and her “Chequers plan” clearly demonstrates she always intended to apply similar arrangements to the remainder of the UK as well. This approach maintained us in uncomfortably close proximity to EU control. That explains why, upon the deal’s signing, one member of the EU negotiating team was inadvertently captured on BBC footage declaring, “We’ve got our first colony”.

Quite rightly, that fundamentally flawed agreement collapsed in Parliament, ushering in the second major confrontation. The Conservative party turned decisively towards Boris Johnson and myself as his chief negotiator. Labour, with Brexit matters effectively directed by Starmer, identified an opportunity to completely overturn the referendum result. The Brexit roulette wheel was configured for “winner takes all”.

As happened with remarkable regularity, they grossly underestimated Boris. We thoroughly reconstructed May’s shattered deal, successfully extracted the country from the EU, and subsequently negotiated a comprehensive free trade agreement. Parliament’s prohibition on a no-deal exit meant we were compelled to accept most of her disastrous Northern Ireland arrangements, though always on a provisional basis. With that significant exception, we successfully re-established British freedom and sovereignty.

Then followed the third decisive engagement. The Northern Ireland arrangements rapidly disintegrated, as we had gravely feared they might, under particularly aggressive management by the EU. Boris and Liz Truss resolved to eliminate the entire Northern Ireland Protocol completely, regardless of EU objections. Had this transpired, the Brexit project would have been conclusively accomplished. Unfortunately, both lost their governmental positions beforehand. Rishi Sunak subsequently lost his nerve and opted for a quiet life, initially by accepting the Northern Ireland deal, cosmetically rebranding it as the Windsor Framework, and subsequently by preserving the majority of inherited EU legislation within our national statute books.

This decision trapped Britain in an increasingly problematic position. Each time we attempt to diverge from EU regulations, we create a widening gap between different parts of our own country. It becomes far simpler merely to follow the EU’s lead, gradually steering us back towards EU domination. We always recognised this danger if we failed to eliminate the Protocol entirely. I vividly recall being warned by one of Barnier’s colleagues that if we displeased the EU, “You won’t be able to move a single kilo of butter into Northern Ireland unless we expressly authorise it”. That menacing possibility persists, and presently the EU occupies the stronger negotiating position.

Against this troubling backdrop, the Labour Government has now initiated the fourth major confrontation. They cannot pursue immediate readmission currently, but they can guide us, incrementally, back towards alignment and control – towards Chequers or something potentially worse. This “reset” represents merely the first such step. Should they succeed unchallenged, additional measures will inevitably follow.

That summarises our current predicament. For a brief period, Boris and I successfully challenged the establishment consensus that Britain could not possibly survive independently. We believed we had achieved the necessary escape velocity. But now the EU’s powerful gravitational pull is inexorably drawing us back into their sphere of influence.

The Guilty Parties

In this endeavour, the EU benefits substantially from a British establishment that never truly abandoned its pro-European stance. They overwhelmingly despised Brexit. Their traditional national strategy, constructed around a special relationship with the Americans combined with deeper European integration, was utterly demolished within a few short months in 2016. Nevertheless, they remained steadfast in their determination to render Brexit as problematic as possible whilst awaiting more favourable circumstances. Consequently, numerous politicians across all parties regrettably prioritised their allegiance to the EU above their loyalty to Britain.

Starmer and his associates would regularly travel to Brussels specifically to advise Barnier on the most effective methods to resist British demands. Starmer actively sought to overturn the largest democratic mandate for anything in our entire national history by advocating a second referendum. They systematically undermined Britain throughout the Brexit crisis, and now they are pursuing precisely the same destructive approach.

Far too many senior civil servants adopted identical attitudes and fundamentally doubted our capacity for independent governance. I recall one particular individual, still prominently positioned today, informing Boris and myself that he could identify various mechanisms to help us “manage” our manifesto commitment to withdraw from the EU’s customs union. Whitehall’s technocratic establishment remains profoundly fearful of genuine freedom and entirely comfortable sacrificing it for the comforting familiarity of EU supervision.

Similarly minded is big business. Entrepreneurs, emerging enterprises, and nascent industries generally embrace the concept of deregulation and global economic openness. Established corporate entities tend towards greater scepticism. They prioritise an uncomplicated existence. This provides essential context for Boris’s notorious comment “F— business”. The remark wasn’t directed against wealth creation generally. Rather, it targeted organisations such as the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) and its membership, which consistently favoured narrow corporate interests over broader British economic and political welfare. With perfect predictability, the CBI publicly endorsed the concessions contained within the “reset” just last Friday.

Finally, the dedicated Remainer activists have maintained their opposition unwaveringly. The informal coalition of retired bureaucrats, most of my former diplomatic service colleagues, and numerous think-tank representatives who reliably channel Brussels perspectives into our domestic political discourse, continuously insist that Brexit represents an unmitigated disaster, that the international environment is perilously unstable, and that our only prudent course is to retreat towards Brussels’s protective embrace. Their sole criticism of the Labour Government concerns insufficient “ambition” regarding the reset, excessive apprehension regarding public opinion, and inadequate haste in restoring compliance with EU standards. They nurture considerable expectations that the coming years will render British freedom and independence definitively unattainable.

The Reset’s Strategic Significance

With such substantial momentum behind them, Labour evidently anticipated the “reset” would proceed relatively smoothly. They naively presumed that the EU would grant numerous significant concessions merely because they had consistently opposed Brexit from the outset. However, the EU conducts negotiations according to entirely different principles. For British negotiators, maintaining positive atmospherics represents an objective in itself. For the EU, such considerations merely constitute another tactical instrument, a mechanism for lulling their counterparts into making unnecessary concessions.

Labour apparently believed their own propaganda regarding the 2020 trade agreement. Echoing various Remain campaign organisations, they convinced themselves it constituted a fundamentally inadequate arrangement that could be readily improved, rather than acknowledging its true nature: the most extensive, comprehensive and far-reaching free trade agreement concluded anywhere globally. Consequently, they are discovering they must surrender substantial concessions to produce anything resembling a meaningful reset, thereby stumbling into precisely the same traps that ensnared May and Sunak previously.

They are beginning by accepting the EU’s preconditions without challenge. This represents a classic EU negotiating tactic: “We categorically refuse to engage in discussions unless you commit to X beforehand.” In this particular instance, X involves abandoning complete control over our fishing territories that was scheduled to be implemented, following an extended transition period, in 2026. Labour should have firmly rejected this demand. However, they remain unwilling to abandon negotiations entirely – consequently, they felt compelled to acquiesce.

Secondly, they are conducting negotiations according to the EU’s preferred parameters. Consider a single illustrative example. Labour claims to seek improved food and animal trade arrangements with the EU. Two potential approaches exist for achieving this objective.

One method, known as “equivalence,” involves both parties acknowledging their respective regulations produce broadly comparable outcomes, for instance regarding food safety standards, and consequently eliminating unnecessary trade restrictions. This approach seems entirely reasonable to me. We attempted this precise strategy in 2020; the EU refused, and we subsequently terminated those particular discussions.

The alternative approach follows the EU’s preferred model: remove trade barriers exclusively when the other party implements EU regulations and legislation, ultimately enforced through EU judicial institutions, applying not merely to products destined for EU markets, but throughout Britain domestically as well.

Labour briefly explored the first option before being summarily dismissed, precisely as they should have anticipated. Rather than responding, “Very well, we shall maintain existing arrangements,” they instead accepted the EU’s approach and are presently preparing to relinquish control over our entire agricultural and food production systems. Expect them to secure meaningless cosmetic concessions, but the fundamental reality will remain unmistakable: we shall operate under EU legislative frameworks with essentially no meaningful input. Forget agricultural innovation entirely. Forget accessing less expensive, high-quality food products from alternative global sources. We will effectively participate in the single market for agricultural products and foodstuffs, mirroring Northern Ireland’s current predicament.

Labour will implement identical approaches across numerous additional sectors. They will apply EU legislation on energy pricing mechanisms, certainly through the Emissions Trading Scheme, and probably extending considerably beyond this specific area. This clearly represents gradual reintegration into the single market for energy. They will accept EU regulations concerning carbon border adjustment measures – effectively tariffs, unquestionably constituting customs measures. Labour’s solemn pledge to remain outside both the single market and customs union is already beginning to unravel noticeably. Moreover, making such substantial substantive concessions in exchange for mere diplomatic pleasantries doesn’t constitute negotiation whatsoever; it represents abject capitulation.

If I Were in Charge: A Winning Strategic Approach

What alternative approach would I adopt if I remained responsible for negotiations? Naturally, I fundamentally question whether any reset is genuinely necessary. The existing trade agreement functions perfectly adequately. Britain’s economic growth presently exceeds that of France, Germany and the Eurozone generally. Our international trade performs remarkably well, and we are experiencing a significant services trade expansion. This year alone, we have successfully joined the CPTPP, the major Pacific trade agreement, whilst simultaneously concluding important bilateral arrangements with both India and the United States. If international opinion regards Britain unfavourably, this relates far more directly to Labour’s catastrophically inept economic management since assuming office last summer than to anything remotely connected with Brexit.

Nevertheless, if compelled to implement some form of reset? My fundamental starting point would involve clearly identifying EU priorities and applying appropriate pressure accordingly. That precisely mirrors our approach during that exceptionally challenging autumn of 2020, and ultimately the EU capitulated rather than ourselves. Von der Leyen genuinely desired an agreement whilst Barnier remained obstinately opposed. Consequently, at particularly crucial junctures, she would dispatch her personal vehicle to transport me into the Commission’s underground car park and subsequently into the building via her private lift. This arrangement facilitated confidential discussions without Barnier’s knowledge – enabling her to make significant concessions without his awareness.

Similarly, Britain currently possesses considerable negotiating leverage. The EU, not Britain, actively seeks a comprehensive defence agreement. The EU, not Britain, desires a youth mobility scheme facilitating the export of their unemployed young people into our domestic labour market. We certainly shouldn’t contemplate financial payments to secure their participation.

If we were to consider concessions in any of these areas – and, as previously stated, I remain unconvinced regarding their necessity – it should exclusively secure something we genuinely require. Perhaps achieving the elimination of checks on goods destined for Northern Ireland. Or an equivalence arrangement regarding food exports. Enhanced services trade access. A formal French commitment to accept responsibility for migrants arriving on small boats. Improved practical border arrangements: widespread e-gate utilisation, abolishing the arbitrary 90-day travel restriction within the EU.

Under absolutely no circumstances would we surrender control to the EU, its legislative framework, or judicial institutions: whether concerning fishing rights, trade regulations, migration policies, energy pricing mechanisms and net zero commitments, or indeed any policy domain whatsoever. If such principled resistance necessarily limited the agreement’s scope, we would readily accept those consequences.

Starmer has pursued precisely the opposite approach. There appears no attempt whatsoever to balance advantages against concessions. Resembling some disreputable used car salesman desperate to clear inventory from his forecourt, he’s effectively communicated to the EU: “Please accept this defence agreement. You’re doing me an immense favour, so I’ll ensure it’s financially worthwhile. I’ll surrender British fishing territories, open our borders to EU youth, and additionally join the single market for both agriculture and energy.”

This approach seemingly defies rational explanation – except from one particular perspective. Labour simply desires closer EU integration. Starmer, Lammy, Reeves – the entire leadership cohort – would enthusiastically rejoin tomorrow if they believed they could accomplish it politically. For now, they aim to achieve incremental proximity, step by careful step. They remain fundamentally unconcerned whether the terms prove disadvantageous for Britain. That’s genuinely irrelevant to their calculations. The overriding objective involves moving progressively closer to Brussels. If that necessitates an hopelessly unbalanced reset, Britain must simply endure the consequences.

Therefore, examine Monday’s announcement with particular scrutiny when this agreement is officially unveiled. Labour is effectively selling you damaged goods. They will attempt to characterise concessions as advantages and loss of sovereignty as beneficial. They will endeavour to portray all opposition as representing obsessive determination to reignite Brexit controversies.

In reality, Labour themselves are responsible for reopening these Brexit disputes. They demonstrate absolutely no interest in establishing a stable relationship with the EU as an independent external partner. Their subsequent move will inevitably involve claiming, “We’re already aligning in one particular area; why not extend this to additional sectors?” Following that, they’ll suggest, “Why are we implementing all these EU regulations without any substantive input? Wouldn’t formal readmission prove more advantageous?” The process may require years. Nevertheless, our descent down this treacherous slippery slope has unmistakably commenced.

Not in Our Name

The Leave movement bears responsibility for exposing this dangerous trajectory and preventing further regression. Those Conservatives genuinely connected to the party’s proud traditions of defending national interests; Reform supporters who despair at Brexit’s incomplete implementation; Labour members inheriting the distinguished tradition of Attlee, Bevin, Gaitskell and Shore, must collectively emphasise that this reset occurs “not in our name”.

Conservative and Reform MPs demonstrated admirable solidarity by uniting in Parliament on Tuesday, emphasising that any future government would reclaim any powers surrendered this week. Additional measures will naturally prove necessary – comprehensively dismantling the Windsor Framework (which the Conservative Party currently endorses), withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights, abandoning the Refugee Convention. The fundamental direction must be unambiguously established and, next time, the destination must be definitively reached.

We must steadfastly defend the free Britain for which Boris and I campaigned so vigorously. The Right’s strategic path remains crystal clear: harness the public’s justified indignation, channel it into a bold pro-sovereignty agenda, and deliver the Brexit that Boris and I initiated. We may currently find ourselves caught in the EU’s powerful gravitational field, but we retain substantial propulsive capacity. When this thoroughly inadequate Government and its shabby concessions are eventually swept aside, we must stand prepared: to properly reclaim control, permanently escape the EU’s oppressive orbit, and construct a Britain that represents not a resentful protectorate, but a genuinely friendly neighbour: free, prosperous and unapologetically proud.