Maybe it’s only now that we realise how tiny the man is. Sir Keir Starmer is making a number of terrible offers to the EU in an attempt to extend his reign. Even he doesn’t think they are in the best interests of the country, but in the vibes-driven Labour Party, totemic concessions are more valuable than tangible benefits.
He made a series of whiny, desperate pledges to his backbenchers during his speech yesterday. He pledged to place “Britain at the heart of Europe,” which is obviously unfeasible from a geographical and political standpoint, taking a line from the tragic John Major.
Naturally, what he means is that he will renounce the pledges he made during the previous election and enter the EU in everything but name, but without the ability to vote.
Why? He would have probably stated so by now if he genuinely believed that we would benefit from adhering to EU norms and giving up on the advancements we have achieved in areas like gene editing and artificial intelligence by having laxer restrictions.
The explanation is that he is counting the number of MPs who are angry about Brexit and who want some symbolic concessions that will irritate Euroskeptics, not the costs and benefits to our economy.
Now, everything revolves around securing a few more days on Downing Street, purchasing time to leave a legacy, and trying to be remembered as something other than a failure from the start.
In everything but name, Sir Keir Starmer will undoubtedly break the pledges he made during the previous election and re-join the EU. (Pictured with Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission)
The PM was instantly recognised by Eurocrats as one of their own. They could tell he was anxious to atone for Brexit. However, they also recognised that he was bound by popular sentiment as well as the promises he had made in his platform prior to the 2024 election, such as his refusal to join the customs union or the single market.
These pledges are now being broken, and the red lines have been erased. Starmer no longer gives a damn about what the general population thinks—just what a few hundred Labour MPs and activists think.
As a result, Brussels is increasing its price. Britain must contribute money up front if it wishes to take part in agreements that will benefit the EU at least as much as Britain, such as a shared carbon trading plan or a common energy market.
Britain must put its money on the table if it wishes to accept EU food and veterinary standards, which would be a clear win for Brussels and a net loss for Britain as it would be far more difficult to negotiate trade agreements with other nations.
It is OK if it wishes to support European defence, but there is a cost involved.
Yes, it is correct. Amazingly, the EU is requesting payment from Britain in order to accept EU demands rather than British ones. Even more amazingly, Starmer is willing to do it in order to please his MPs.
Why do Labour MPs want such a poor deal? Do their supporters not already pay enough in taxes? Is this the best use of our money—a growing portion of which, never forget, needs to be borrowed?
I don’t believe those MPs have ever actually taken the time to weigh the pros and cons of the planned EU reset. For the majority of them and their ardent supporters, this is more of an emotional than an academic subject.
Have they not taken into account the fact that the EU economy is likewise steadily declining? The EU today only makes about 17% of the global GDP, down from 27% in 1990. They still haven’t quite recovered from the shock of waking up on June 24, 2016, in a nation that they perceived as having voted against cooperation with Europe.
Ten years later, it is useless to try to persuade them that 52% of us were voting for global participation, democracy, and sovereignty rather than against friendship with our neighbours.
Even if pledges are breached, should Britain forgo its own interests in order to get closer to the EU?
According to Daniel Hannan, Starmer’s self-serving and baseless Euro-enthusiasm will have the same impact as his support of ID cards, which solidified the electorate’s opposition to the idea.
No, this is a culture war for the hard core of Continuity Remainers, who are primarily found on Labour’s parliamentary benches. Wiping the smile off Nigel Farage’s face, raising the 12-star flag, and letting the world know that we are an anti-racist place—regardless of the financial cost—are what matter.
If you think it sounds unrealistic, think about how we re-entered the Erasmus Scheme, a student exchange program that requires participating states to cover the costs of the students they host.
The plan was always going to negatively impact this nation’s economy because a large number of EU students attend British colleges rather than the other way around. According to most estimations, it will ultimately cost us over £1 billion annually.
After leaving the EU, we replaced Erasmus with the Turing program, which allowed us to cover our own children’s study abroad expenses. Turing was better in every aspect: it was more affordable for British taxpayers, appealing to students from lower-class backgrounds, and had a global reach. However, in the midst of frenzied celebrations by Labour MPs eager to show off their European credentials, it was junked anyhow.
Demands to rejoin the customs union, which offers tariff-free commerce among member states, are motivated by the same careless posturing. I acknowledge that I will never be able to persuade Euro-fanatics of the benefits of trade agreements with rapidly expanding economies in the Pacific and South Asia. However, they would quickly realise that joining the customs union would eliminate tariffs rather than border and regulatory restrictions on our exports.
Despite being closer to and more economically reliant on the EU than Britain is, Norway and Switzerland have never thought about joining for a reason.
Only one or two Labour MPs have taken the time to examine the specifics. For instance, Stella Creasy investigated the matter and found that membership in the customs union would not alleviate trade constraints, but a measure of single market participation—including more convergence with EU standards to decrease these regulatory checks—would.
However, not many of her coworkers are curious about the specifics. Labour MPs supported the customs union because they liked the name “union” and opposed the single market because they didn’t like the word “market,” as Kristian Niemetz of the Institute of Economic Affairs noted at the time.
Even Starmer’s rumours of joining the single market would come with a high annual fee: last week, it was rumoured that the UK would have to pay £1 billion for the privilege, as Switzerland agreed to pay 375 million euros annually to the EU’s social cohesion fund.
If there is a bright side to this, it is that voters are now aware of how flimsy the Euro-nostalgic argument is. Starmer’s self-serving and unfounded Euro-enthusiasm will have the same impact as his support for ID cards, which solidified the opposition of a previously equally divided electorate. Not until it’s time.
A Conservative peer is Lord Hannan of Kingsclere.
