Starmer’s EU Reset is National Suicide

This EU ‘Reset’ Deal Has Betrayed Brexit Far More Comprehensively Than Initially Feared: Conservative MPs Must Begin Unravelling It Now

A Complete Capitulation to Brussels That Has Flouted the Will of the British People

As we have come to expect in matters of international negotiation, the European Union has once again played an uncompromising game of hardball diplomacy. While the United Kingdom’s entry to the Eurovision Song Contest was plummeting down the leaderboard on Saturday evening, Sir Keir Starmer’s much-vaunted ‘reset’ balloon was simultaneously losing altitude at an alarming rate. The British negotiating team, desperate to salvage something from the wreckage, began frantically jettisoning their negotiation positions overboard in a last-ditch effort to keep the arrangement afloat. This Monday shall certainly be etched into our collective memory as a day of profound national significance. So what, precisely, has transpired in this diplomatic catastrophe?

Five Disastrous Concessions to Brussels

The Single Market for Agriculture: A Manifesto Promise Shattered

First and foremost, in direct contravention of Labour’s explicit manifesto commitment, the United Kingdom is effectively rejoining the single market for agricultural products and foodstuffs. This capitulation means we must apply European Union laws across our entire farming and food sectors, affecting all companies and agricultural enterprises regardless of whether they conduct any trade whatsoever with the EU. Most alarmingly, the European Court of Justice will retain final jurisdiction over any disputes that arise—a clear surrender of the sovereignty that Brexit was intended to restore.

The Labour Government appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that our food trade with the European continent has collapsed catastrophically and that their hastily-arranged deal will somehow revitalise this sector. This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the current economic landscape. Multiple factors have influenced the trade figures beyond mere paperwork: reclassification of goods, trade diversion to alternative markets, substitution with less expensive non-EU products in our domestic market, and even meteorological conditions have had far more significant impacts on our trade statistics than the administrative procedures they seem so desperate to eliminate.

Most peculiarly, Labour seems to believe that Britain’s economic renaissance will somehow be constructed upon minor adjustments to a food and drink trade that constitutes a mere 2-3 per cent of our total exports. Yet this position appears wholly inconsistent with their simultaneous policies encouraging family farms to abandon traditional agriculture in favour of solar panel installations and other green energy initiatives. One cannot help but question the coherence of this strategy.

The actual consequence of this ill-conceived agreement will be to create a frictionless pathway for the European Union—a substantially larger, more successful, more diverse, and significantly more expensive agricultural producer—to flood our markets with their exports, potentially devastating British farmers who will struggle to compete.

Energy and Carbon: Surrendering Control of Our Green Transition

Secondly, this agreement commits the United Kingdom to joining the single market for electricity, the European Union’s carbon trading scheme, and their controversial mechanism for imposing tariffs on carbon-intensive imports, the so-called Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

If you believe energy prices have already reached unsustainable heights, prepare yourself for further increases, as the European Union’s carbon price currently stands approximately 50 per cent higher than our own. Even more concerning is the commitment that our net zero obligations must remain “at least as ambitious as the EU”. Should future British governments wish to reconsider our approach to net zero targets in light of economic realities or technological developments, they will find themselves unable to do so without securing explicit permission from Brussels. This represents nothing less than the outsourcing of a critical aspect of our national sovereignty.

Fishing: An Unconscionable Surrender of British Waters

Thirdly, the Government has inexplicably abandoned control of our territorial fishing grounds—which were due to revert to full British control next year—until the astonishingly distant date of 2038. Throughout negotiations, the United Kingdom initially proposed a reasonable extension of four years and anticipated that the European Union might push for six or seven. Instead, we have capitulated entirely and agreed to surrender our fishing rights for twelve additional years. This represents a negotiating failure of historic proportions. One is reminded of Sir Winston Churchill’s wry observation regarding his dreadnought shipbuilding programme: “The Admiralty demanded six ships; the economists offered four; and we finally compromised on eight.”

This agreement effectively extinguishes any realistic prospect of rebuilding our once-proud fishing industry using our own naturally abundant fish stocks. While Labour has made vague promises of establishing a recovery fund, additional taxpayers’ money is manifestly not what the industry requires. What our coastal communities need is the opportunity to build a productive, sustainable fishing industry that catches and sells products that consumers actively desire. The Labour Government has demonstrated a remarkable tone-deafness towards our maritime communities, and they will undoubtedly face political consequences for this betrayal.

Youth Mobility: An Open Door Policy by Another Name

Fourthly, the agreement establishes a youth mobility scheme, disingenuously rebranded as a youth “experience” scheme. However, the actual text makes abundantly clear that this programme extends to individuals who are volunteering “or simply travelling”—activities that surely could already be undertaken without this new framework. Conspicuously absent is any firm commitment to impose numerical caps on participants, with the agreement merely stating that the “overall number of participants is acceptable to both sides”. Who among us can genuinely believe that this Labour Government would adopt a robust stance on migration numbers? One can only hope they do not assign their fisheries negotiator to oversee youth mobility arrangements.

Financial Obligations: Paying for the Privilege of Subservience

Finally, and perhaps most galling of all, we must pay substantial sums to Brussels for the dubious privilege of surrendering our autonomy. We will be required to pay a fee for the right to be governed by the European Union on agricultural and food standards. We must pay another fee to accept their energy regulations and net zero dictates. And we will be obliged to pay yet another fee to rejoin the Erasmus student exchange programme.

The Erasmus scheme previously cost British taxpayers approximately £150 million annually, and will certainly reach similar levels again in the future. This is an inevitable consequence of the fact that we consistently receive more European students in Britain than we send abroad, owing to our world-class universities and the universal appeal of the English language. To be clear, I harbour no objection whatsoever to European students coming to study in the United Kingdom, but one must question why the European Union cannot finance their students’ educational experiences, just as we fund our own students studying abroad through the Turing scheme. Inexplicably, the Government has arranged matters such that British taxpayers will soon be funding both programmes simultaneously.

A Security Agreement Without Substance

All these substantial concessions appear to have been offered in exchange for a security and defence agreement that contains precious little of either security or defence provisions. Instead, we have received a lengthy catalogue of meetings we might be permitted to attend. The text itself reveals the hollowness of this arrangement, stating it is merely “based on dialogue and consultation mechanisms to facilitate the exchange of information”. This is hardly comparable to the robust security architecture of NATO—and while that distinction is appropriate, one must question why we have sacrificed so much to obtain so little in return.

As for the much-publicised arrangement regarding e-gates at European airports, the text provides only for “exchanges” concerning “the potential use of eGates where appropriate.” In numerous EU airports, this “potential” has already been realised, while elsewhere the situation remains ambiguous at best.

A Comprehensive Surrender of British Interests

In summary, this agreement represents an unconscionable surrender of vital British interests in exchange for minimal reciprocal benefits. It initiates a process of incrementally reincorporating our nation back into the regulatory embrace of the single market and customs union—precisely the entanglements from which Brexit was intended to free us.

The Conservative Party has rightly committed to reclaiming these surrendered powers for Britain, while Reform UK has gone further still by declaring that the Windsor Framework and other residual elements of European Union law must also be comprehensively scrapped.

All of this will require substantial political determination and legislative effort. What we have witnessed today represents merely a political agreement in principle; the detailed legal texts will require months of painstaking negotiation. Numerous contentious points have simply been deferred, and the Labour Government is virtually certain to concede even more ground on matters of detail. Labour’s Red Wall voters—if indeed any remain—will undoubtedly feel betrayed by this comprehensive capitulation.

The Conservative Party, as the principal parliamentary opposition, must approach this challenge with unprecedented vigour and determination. They must scrutinise and challenge the Government at every stage of the process, both within Parliament and beyond its walls. Subsequently, they must formulate a comprehensive strategy to reclaim these surrendered powers, and more besides, when next they form a government.

Labour’s Enduring Brussels Infatuation

The Labour Party, naturally, displays little concern regarding what they have conceded. Their primary objective has always been to reestablish closer ties with the European Union, regardless of the cost to British sovereignty.

The European Union negotiators are nothing if not ruthless: they will happily offer warm words and hollow platitudes while never allowing sentiment to divert them from the relentless pursuit of their strategic interests. The Labour Government, however, appears unable to emotionally detach itself from its former European partners. Their affection for Brussels remains as fervent as ever. Yet this romantic attachment will yield no benefits for Britain and will inflict lasting damage upon our national interests.

Perhaps we should have recognised the symbolic significance of last Saturday evening’s Eurovision results—when Austria claimed victory with their entry titled “Wasted Love”. Our nation shall ultimately bear the substantial cost of Labour’s misguided European infatuation.

Conclusion: A Brexit Betrayal That Must Be Reversed

This agreement represents nothing less than a comprehensive betrayal of the Brexit mandate delivered by the British people. It surrenders control over agriculture, fisheries, energy policy, carbon regulation, and migration while imposing substantial financial burdens on British taxpayers. In return, we have received hollow promises and meaningless consultation rights.

The Conservative Party and other defenders of British sovereignty must now begin the arduous task of documenting every concession, challenging each surrender of authority, and preparing a comprehensive plan to unravel this disastrous agreement at the earliest opportunity. The British people voted decisively for independence from Brussels; they deserve political representatives who will honour that democratic instruction rather than systematically undermining it.

The coming months will reveal the full extent of the damage this agreement inflicts upon our national sovereignty, our economic interests, and our democratic institutions. Those who value British independence must remain vigilant and prepared to defend it against this insidious attempt to return us to European control through the back door.