Brexit reset deal: A TBC agreement with a lot still to be worked out with EU
Sir Keir Starmer used the opulent surroundings of London's Lancaster House to declare with certainty that this is a "landmark deal" that will grow the British economy and put money in people's pockets.
It is evidence, the prime minister said, of Britain back on the world stage. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and European Council president Antonio Costa addressed him as "dear Keir". Times have changed.
Symbolically - nearly a decade after Brexit and all the battles and feuds which followed - it is a big moment to see a prime minister warming up relations with the EU.
But when you read the nine-page Cooperation Agreement, it is very clear this is just the starter, not the full meal; the opening scene rather than the final curtain. In other words, most of what the government says are negotiated wins are in fact TBC.
The deal covers agri-food; fishing, defence, energy and passport checks. The government claims it will add nearly £9bn (around 0.3% of GDP) to the British economy by 2040.
A security and defence partnership has been struck; trumpeted as a way UK defence firms can access the EU's £150bn procurement fund. The text only says the UK and EU "should swiftly explore the possibilities", of doing so. Starmer said it would "open the door" for UK firms to benefit, but the UK is not inside the door yet.
On trade, the UK government sees the big wins economically - but there are costs and trade-offs. The food deal - or to give it its full name the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement - would eliminate some of the barriers to trade erected during Brexit.
Paperwork has undoubtedly held up exports, and some products, such as sausages, other cold meats and shellfish, cannot be sold to the EU. The idea is this red tape would be swept away - which has been welcomed by retailers, supermarkets and food processors, who say it will cut prices at the tills.
But this comes with conditions - admin costs; and the need to align with EU rules and standards now and into the future.
2:33
Those rules are set by member states, not the UK, and overseen by the European Court of Justice. All of the red lines of the past. Brexiteers are calling it a "betrayal" and the UK going back to being a "rule taker". The specifics would need legislation to go through parliament, so more votes loom.
The biggest trade-off is on fishing, a key sticking point in the negotiations from countries such as France. This deal enables EU member states to fish in our water for another 12 years beyond the current deal - until 2038.
The government points out that the food deal is indefinite, and the fishing rights have a time limit. But what was agreed was three times longer, it is claimed, than the four years the government had hoped for.
Nigel Farage said it would "destroy the fishing industry". All deals involve trade-offs but what has it bought in return?
5:07
The suggestion that holidaymakers could avoid "huge queues" at airports through an agreement for British travellers to use e-Gates at European airports.
The agreement states that there will be "no legal barriers to eGate use for British nationals travelling to and from member states" - but nothing firmer. It's up to member states to implement.
A youth mobility scheme - which the government has now branded a "youth experience scheme", will happen, despite months of ministers denying one was on the cards.
The terms must be mutually agreed, and the final numbers, how the cap will apply and the time limits are yet to be worked out.
Starmer is gambling that - based on polling showing most Brexit voters feel the original deal negotiated by Boris Johnson has failed - voters will accept the trade-offs.
He said it was time to move away from the "stale" arguments of the past and move on. It's notable that while Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has slammed Starmer's deal as a "sell out", she concedes it needs to be looked at again.
👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈
Given the threat from Reform, the prime minister has been careful to steer very clear of free movement and any concession on student fees. But those questions will come back as the details are hammered out.
Whether on food prices or airports, the negotiations could continue for weeks, months or years. There may be many more EU summits for this and subsequent governments.
It may not be the end of the Brexit wrangling - as the prime minister hopes - but the start of a new phase in which costs, caps and quotas are discussed regularly, and seized on by his political opponents.
The gains are some way off, given that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated the hit of Brexit to the economy (4%) to be far larger.
This is a significant move closer to the EU at a time when the Ukraine war and Donald Trump's diplomacy are shaking up the old order. But for a big concession, whether this can be sold to voters as a good deal is a question for further down the line.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
15 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Brexit rules spark ‘clear demand' for more motorhome parking, lobby group says
Boosting provision for these vehicles would generate more revenue for local businesses and increase the number of visitors to tourist destinations outside the peak summer season, the Campaign for Real Aires (Campra) said. Aires is a French word used to describe designated stopping places for motorcaravans – the collective term for motorhomes and campervans – which are much more common in continental Europe than the UK. Post-Brexit rules mean UK passport holders are prohibited from being in the Schengen area – which covers most of the European Union and some other European nations – for more than 90 days within a 180-day period. That means many UK-based motorcaravan users are seeking domestic destinations for overnight trips. But a survey of 6,731 users suggested 88% are dissatisfied with the UK's availability of overnight parking in desirable locations. The poll also indicated that motorcaravaners spend an average of £51 per day in local businesses and £23 per night on overnight parking or campsite fees. Many respondents commented on the UK's lack of infrastructure and welcoming attitude compared with continental Europe, Campra said. Last month, Hampshire County Council approved plans to ban campervans and motorhomes from staying overnight at the south coast beauty spot of Keyhaven, near Lymington. It claimed the move would 'bring order' to the area. Campra managing director Steve Haywood said welcoming motorcaravans to an area 'can be a hugely positive move'. He went on: 'There is a clear demand – emphasised by post-Brexit travel restrictions – for more overnight stay options in UK towns and cities, and those towns and cities could benefit hugely by embracing motorcaravans. 'More councils are seeing the benefits of providing facilities, instead of suffering the cost of enforcement and bans, not to mention the loss of potential revenue to businesses. 'In Fleetwood, Lancashire, for example, the introduction of overnight parking in the seafront car park for £5 per night has seen a huge boost in revenue for local shops, and has been so successful that additional facilities are now being planned for motorcaravanners. 'Every council that has operated a 12-month trial aire has been successful and made the overnight parking permanent.' Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency figures show more than 416,000 motorcaravans are registered in the UK. A spokesperson for the Local Government Association said: 'Policies around overnight motorcaravan parking and the provision of facilities are a matter for local councils.'
Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK lobbies South Korea to switch to Rolls-Royce for new fighter jets, FT reports
June 23 (Reuters) - British officials are lobbying South Korea to switch to Rolls-Royce (RR.L), opens new tab from U.S. rival GE Aerospace as the primary engine partner for its fighter jet programme, the Financial Times reported on Monday. Officials have been lobbying for co-production with a foreign partner as an intermediary step, the FT said, citing people familiar with the matter.
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
NATO leaders gather Tuesday for what could be a historic summit, or one marred by divisions
U.S. President Donald Trump and his NATO counterparts are due to gather Tuesday for a summit that could unite the world's biggest security organization around a new defense spending pledge or widen divisions among the 32 allies. Just a week ago, things had seemed rosy. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic the European members and Canada would commit to invest at least as much of their economic growth on defense as the United States does for the first time. Then Spain rejected the new NATO target for each country to spend 5% of its gross domestic product on defense needs, calling it 'unreasonable.' Trump also insists on that figure. The alliance operates on a consensus that requires the backing of all 32 members. The following day, Trump said the U.S. should not have to respect the goal. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. Trump lashed out at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez's government, saying: 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain. Spain's been a very low payer." He also criticized Canada as 'a low payer.' Spain was the lowest spender in the alliance last year, directing less than 2% of its GDP on defense expenditure, while Canada was spending 1.45%, according to NATO figures. Then Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the U.S.-led war on Iraq deeply divided NATO, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition. European allies and Canada also want Ukraine to be at the top of the summit agenda, but they are wary that Trump might not want President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to steal the limelight. A short summit, decades of mutual security The two-day summit in The Hague involves an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording. Indeed, much about this NATO summit is brief, even though ripples could be felt for years. Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong U.S. presence on the continent. Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not. NATO's ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia. NATO's collective security guarantee — Article 5 of the treaty — underpins its credibility. It's a political commitment by all countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Trump has suggested he is committed to that pledge, but he has also sowed doubt about his intentions. He has said the U.S. intends to remain a member of the alliance. A civilian runs NATO, but the U.S. and its military hold power The United States is NATO's most powerful member. It spends much more on defense than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. Washington has traditionally driven the agenda but has stepped back under Trump. The U.S. nuclear arsenal provides strategic deterrence against would-be adversaries. NATO's day-to-day work is led by Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister. As its top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other 'NACs' at ministerial and leader levels. Rutte runs NATO headquarters, trying to foster consensus and to speak on behalf of all members. NATO's military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top U.S. officer. Ukraine's role at the summit is unclear With Trump demanding greater defense spending, it's unclear what role Ukraine will play at the summit. Zelenskyy has been invited, but it's unclear whether he will have a seat at NATO's table, although he may take part in Tuesday's dinner. Russia's war in Ukraine usually dominates such meetings. More broadly, NATO itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organization, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only non-lethal support — fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armor, and equipment to counter drones or mines. But individually, members do send arms. European allies provided 60% of the military support that Ukraine received in 2024. NATO coordinates those weapons deliveries via a hub on the Polish border and helps organize training for Ukrainian troops. NATO's troop plans A key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russia, or any other adversary, from attacking in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined NATO recently because of this concern. Under NATO's new military plans, 300,000 military personnel would be deployed within 30 days to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace. But experts doubt whether the allies could muster the troop numbers. It's not just about troop and equipment numbers. An adversary would be less likely to challenge NATO if it thought the allies would use the forces it controls. Trump's threats against U.S. allies — including imposing tariffs on them — has weakened that deterrence. The U.S. is carrying the biggest military burden Due to high U.S. defense spending over many years, the American armed forces have more personnel and superior weapons but also significant transportation and logistics assets. Other allies are starting to spend more, though. After years of cuts, NATO members committed to ramp up their national defense budgets in 2014 when Russia illegally annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the NATO allies agreed to make 2% of GDP the minimum spending level. Last year, 22 countries were expected to hit that target, up from only three a decade ago. In The Hague, the allies were expected to up the ante to 3.5%, plus a further 1.5% for things like improving roads, bridges, ports and airfields or preparing societies to deal with future conflicts. Whether they will now remains an open question.
