Questions grow over true cost of UK-EU deal as Starmer stays silent

By
Keir Starmer was last night under pressure to come clean about the bill for his controversial Brexit 'surrender'. The Prime Minister repeatedly ducked questions in Parliament about how much Britain will pay the EU for his deal amid speculation it will run to hundreds of millions of pounds a year.
During clashes in the Commons, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch (pictured) said Sir Keir had not said 'a single word... about the money that we will now be sending to Brussels'. While Tory MP Dame Harriett Baldwin said it was time for the PM to set out 'how much UK taxpayers' money is he willing to hand over to the EU in order to sign up to its protectionist demands'.
Sir Keir admitted that the deal will involve the UK making a 'proportionate contribution' to the EU but refused to say how much it would be. Tory grandee Sir Bernard Jenkin said the PM was 'submitting to EU regulations without any control and starting to pay money back to the European Union – he is giving up control over our laws and restoring payments to the European Union'. He predicted Labour would 'pay a bitter political price for this betrayal'. The PM, however, insisted his deal would be 'good for our country and good for the economy'.
Downing Street denied the PM had signed a blank cheque to the EU but said the implementation of parts of the deal is still being negotiated. The agreement, announced on Monday, commits the UK to rejoining the EU's Erasmus+ scheme for young people. The cost of this has previously been estimated at more than £200million. But the UK must also make an 'appropriate financial contribution' to help with the EU's costs in monitoring Britain's compliance with the bloc's rules in areas like food and farming standards.
Britain will also have to pay for its firms to access the EU's new £125billion defence procurement programme. But Sir Keir insisted that Britain will not be 'paying into the EU budget in the way that EU members do', with payments instead tied directly to benefits. No 10 said the financial cost of the deal would be dwarfed by the benefits, which it estimates will add £9billion to the economy by 2040. The PM was also boosted by an intervention from Morrisons' chief executive Rami Baitieh, who said the deal would 'ease a source of pressure on food prices'. In the Commons, Eurosceptic MPs condemned the deal.
Mrs Badenoch said the deal was 'bad for bills; it is bad for jobs; and it is bad for borders'. She condemned the decision to extend EU fishing access to British waters for another 12 years as a 'sellout'. And she said the decision to permanently align with the EU's rules in areas like agriculture was a 'total capitulation', adding: 'The Prime Minister is going to pay the EU to abide by laws that we have no say on.' Tory MP Mark Francois said: 'The British people voted peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union, so why has the Prime Minister surrendered that right and made us a rule-taker from the EU once again?'
Sir Keir described the warning as 'nonsense' and insisted that the UK 'will have a role in shaping any future rules'. He said the deal was just a 'first step', adding that Labour hoped to 'take our co-operation and co-ordination further, step by step.' But he appeared to rule out rejoining the EU's customs union, saying that would cut across other recent trade deals with India and the U.S., adding: 'I am not prepared to rip up the benefits that we have negotiated in those deals'.
In Brussels, EU diplomats celebrated, with one telling the BBC: 'The deal is balanced – arguably with favourable terms for the EU – and simply shows that splendid isolation is not an option in today's climate.' The deal has provoked a furious backlash from the fishing industry, with senior figures describing it as a 'horror show'. Pictured: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer (L) and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (R) leave after holding a press conference following the UK-EU summit at the Lancaster House in London, Britain, 19 May 2025.
But Environment Secretary Steve Reed (pictured) claimed it was a 'reasonably good deal' for the sector. He said ministers had resisted pressure from Brussels to allow even more access for EU trawlers and that the deal should spell the end of the bloc's ban on British shellfish.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

19 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Fast-track suicide if you pay extra, discount deals for couples and you don't even have to be terminally ill: Inside Germany's morally queasy approach to assisted dying where business is booming for the pedlars of euthanasia

Last week, the UK's highest elected officials ruled on the most existential of questions: how we choose to die. At its third reading, the Assisted Dying Bill passed the Commons by a slim majority of 23 votes, and now its fate lies with the Lords, where it faces a bumpy ride before it becomes law. The upper chamber, for instance, will examine if a three-person panel of professionals (from law, psychiatry and social work) offers greater safety and oversight in approving a patient's application to die than a High Court judge, as was originally proposed. Peers will have at their disposal the grim cost-benefit analysis to the NHS in accelerating the deaths of the terminally ill, released last month under the cover of the local election results. According to the report, as many as 1,300 people are expected to apply to die in the first year, saving as much as £10million in medical bills. But can the health service cope with this demand, especially as NHS staff will be offered an opt-out from the ugly business of state-sponsored suicide? No doubt private health providers are already bending the ears of peers for a slice of the death industry pie. It would be tempting to allow private enterprise to take some of the strain, but I urge the Lords to look at how business seized the opportunity with morally queasy gusto in my native land, Germany, where some firms offer a 'fast track' service for people who can pay more and even special discounts to couples wishing to hasten their demise. Pictured: Pedestrians walk past the posters promoting the Assisted Dying bill at Westminster Underground station In Germany, anyone 18 or over can lawfully commit suicide with the help of a third party. Yes, anyone. There is no requirement for the person to be six months from death, nor is there any specification over having a life-limiting or debilitating illness (as in the UK Bill). A perfectly healthy university student can seek help to kill themselves for no better reason than they are fed up with life. Hannelore Kring, 83, is typical of Germany's liberal approach to assisted suicide. A recording of her death featured in a podcast by news broadcaster WDR and it is a spine-chilling reminder of how relaxed my countrymen are about dying. At an undertaker's, Frau Kring is accompanied by two 'death helpers' – a nurse and retired teacher – and sounds relieved her life will end in a matter of minutes. Dressed in black and with make-up, as if attending a party, she suggests a dance with the nurse. Indeed, she is not ill, she is as healthy as anyone in their 80s. She has run a second-hand men's boutique in Hamburg but feels life's no longer worth living. She's lonely, all her friends have died and the state of the world depresses her. The helpers ask if she really wants to go through with it. 'Absolutely!' she replies enthusiastically. The nurse hooks her up to an infusion of a lethal dose of narcotics – a 'suicide cocktail'. She merely has to turn a valve, letting the toxic chemicals enter her bloodstream, putting her to sleep for ever. It's important she takes the final step herself, otherwise the helpers could be charged with manslaughter. Assisted suicides like this have been fully legal in Germany since 2020, although legislation has been a generation in the making. After the Second World War the subject was largely taboo, in no small part due to revulsion at the Nazis' Aktion T4 programme, which entailed the 'mercy killing' of 300,000 disabled people. By the 1970s and 1980s, a push for more patient autonomy led to court decisions in 1984 and 1990 that ensured suffering, bed-ridden people had the right to stop treatments that prolonged their lives. With the 2009 Patient Directive Law, people could include such instructions in a living will if they became incapacitated. This gave legal protections to doctors offering assisted suicide. But then the public grew uneasy at what seemed a creeping commercialisation of the right to die. Healthcare is not free at the point of use in Germany, so the nation is more comfortable than the UK with private provision within the system. But only up to a point. Many were appalled in 2014 when a Berlin urologist Uwe-Christian Arnold revealed he had helped 'several hundred people' take their lives since the late 1990s for fees of up to €10,000. Christian groups accused him of undermining the sanctity of life. The German Medical Association threatened him with a €50,000 fine, saying doctors should prolong life, not give their patients lethal poisons. Arnold took them to court over the fine and won. Also in 2014, a right-to-die association in Hamburg caused uproar for offering fast-track assisted suicide consultations in exchange for higher membership fees. Its normal rate was €2,000, with a waiting time of a year, but it introduced a jump-the-queue service for €7,000. Other providers offered discounts for couples interested in dying together. These were grisly bargains that lead many to regard Germany as a Las Vegas of suicide, which was anathema to a country that saw itself as otherwise Christian and conservative. Church groups took to Berlin's streets as legislators sought to crack down on the industry. Arnold and others passionately defended their businesses. The 'death helpers' argued the issue was comparable to abortion: a ban would be unfair to the terminally ill, who shouldn't have to travel to places like Switzerland to end their lives with dignity. The debate ended with parliament banning 'commercial' assisted suicide under Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015. Subsequently, only friends and relatives who received no money for their assistance could help someone end their life. Legal challenges were launched by right-to-die advocates and people suffering terminal illnesses. In a 2020 judgement, the Constitutional Court said the freedoms enshrined in the country's post-war constitution meant 'the decision to take one's own life must be respected by the state as an act of personal autonomy'. Those who had been put out of work by the previous ruling were free to ply their trade once again. Five years after that decision, it feels like we're back to the Wild West of pre-2015. Assisted suicide in Germany is an unregulated free-for-all. A slew of undertakers, lawyers and independent doctors are facilitating a rising toll of assisted deaths. Last year it was about 1,000, though no one is keeping exact figures. Likewise there's no central registry of providers. Nearly anyone can set up shop. The largest player in the business is the German Association for Humane Dying (DGHS), which charges €4,000 a suicide but offers a discounted €6,000 for couples. It says that of the 623 people for whom it arranged suicide last year (it forwards requests to independent teams of doctors and lawyers), 22 per cent were just 'fed up with life'. Two-thirds were female. DGHS spokesperson Wega Wetzel says: 'Women are more likely to be widowed and 'left over' than men. Women are more likely to plan and communicate, while men often choose 'hard' suicide methods such as hanging.' Equally worrying is the fact that nothing prevents young people from choosing the path of assisted suicide. The youngest case I heard of was a 21-year-old man. The only requirement spelled out by the court was that the person be 'freely responsible' for their decision. At least DGHS, to maintain its reputation, has doctors and lawyers screen applicants to ensure they understand what they're getting into, that they're not being coerced and that they do not show symptoms of mental illness or dementia. But nobody knows how many independent providers are making money with assisted suicide. Nobody knows how they are screening clients, particularly in the more affordable services where standards may be lower. A study last month in the British Medical Journal analysed 77 assisted suicides in Munich. It found that one patient's consultation with a clinic lasted 55 minutes and the death was booked for the next day. The assisting physician in another case was a relative of the patient. In a 2022 case, the suicidal person was judged of sound mind based on a five-year-old mental capacity evaluation. But there is still broad support for the right to die: 80 per cent of Germans feel it's appropriate for the critically ill. But just 30 per cent say it should be available to people with a long life ahead of them, and only 3 per cent for young people having a crisis. Ute Lewitzska, professor for suicide studies at Frankfurt University, sees a fundamental change in how we deal with growing old. 'Supply creates demand,' she says. 'The 2020 court decision didn't just open a crack in the door, it flung the door wide open – and we're not going to be able to close that door again.' The fear is a normalisation of assisted suicide. For some it's a humane way to end one's life; for others it's an easy solution to suffering that's being oversold. Dr Lukas Radbruch, director of palliative care at University Clinic Bonn, has worked with end-of-life patients for three decades. He says many more now ask about assisted suicide but 'so many people are not sufficiently informed. Or we have doubts about how voluntary their choice is. Or we realise they still want to live, even if they say they want to die.' Sometimes a suicidal person needs counselling, not the means to kill themselves. Where do you draw the line? Dr Radbruch asks. In 2023 the German parliament tried to hammer out rules to provide clearer guidance, but MPs couldn't reach a consensus. Like many in the West, Germany seems destined to grope its way through this ethical minefield with no transparent way forward that is satisfactory for all. I do not envy the task ahead for Britain's Lords. My country's experience offers a salutary lesson that for the Bill to become law, they must make black and white what is a painfully grey issue.

BBC News

20 minutes ago

• BBC News

Give new recruits £10,000 to join army, says Sir Ed Davey

New soldiers should be offered a £10,000 bonus to rapidly boost troop numbers to deal with an increasingly unpredictable world, the Lib Dems have government should also distribute pamphlets to make sure every British home is "war-ready" and able to deal with blackouts and chaos caused by the outbreak of conflict or cyber-attacks, Lib Dem Leader Sir Ed Davey Lib Dems claim the plans will "urgently" boost to the number of trained soldiers from just under 71,000 to more than 73, the face of a "barbaric" Russian President Vladimir Putin and an "erratic" US President Donald Trump, Sir Ed said the UK must be better prepared. Over the weekend, Sir Ed visited Estonia to see British troops on what he called Nato's "frontline with Russia".His visit had shown him "it is clear given the threat of a barbaric Putin and the challenge of an erratic Trump, we need to do more to make Britain war-ready," he said."War readiness also starts at home," Sir Ed added, "which is why I am calling for a public awareness campaign aimed at every home in Britain - to make sure we're all prepared for the possibility of a conflict or hostile acts such as major cyber-attacks".Under the plans, new recruits receive a £10,000 bonus after completing training and serving for two armed services personnel would be offered a £20,000 payment if they return to serve two additional starting salary for new recruits to the British Army is £26,334 a a government scheme launched last November, a total of 17,000 armed forces personnel became eligible for retention engineers can get £30,000 if they sign up for a further three years, with privates and lance corporals eligible for £8,000 for four proposed Lib Dem scheme would be limited to 3,000 personnel, including new recruits and re-enlistees, with its £60m cost covered by the main defence plans are drawn up with the expectation that defence spending would rise to 2.5% of national income or GDP by 2027 - as promised by Lib Dems have called for the uplift in defence spending to be funded through an increase of the Digital Services Tax - a 2% levy on the biggest social media and tech companies, which raises about £800m a Lib Dems argue the bonus scheme would "urgently increase" the number of trained UK regular soldiers up to 73,000 - from the 70,752 listed in the most recent official month, the government set out plans for a small increase to the size of the regular army to 76,000 full-time soldiers after 2029 - although this has yet to be has also proposed a 20% increase in Active Reserves "when funding allows" - most likely after 2030 following an overhaul of the armed forces. The government is consulting on plans to regenerate military homes with £7bn of funding by 2025, after bringing the defence estate back under Ministry of Defence (MoD) control last Conservatives have called for an increase in UK troop numbers but have not set out how many they think are week, the shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge set out plans to have military homes run by a housing association to tackle the "poor" state of accommodation and stem an exodus of a third of UK troops were considering leaving the armed forces due to the standard of accommodation, the Ministry of Defence's (MoD) own survey found. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.

The Sun

26 minutes ago

• The Sun

My new manager is destroying my confidence with micro-management & bad communication

APPRENTICE star and West Ham United vice-chair Karren Brady answers your careers questions. Here, Karren gives advice to a reader who wants to negotiate a fair redundancy after 20 years at her job. Q: For the past three years, I've worked in change communications. It was my perfect job and enabled me to thrive. Unfortunately, my employer got rid of my position and sent me back to a previous role in a different department, which I now find difficult. I'm currently on the waiting list for a neurodiversity assessment. I've told my new manager this, but they don't understand and work in a way that makes things a struggle and affects my focus. They also aren't very clear in their communication and they micro-manage me – even asking me about personal appointments in my calendar. I want to move forward – whether in this company or a different one – but my confidence is being knocked every day. Do you have any advice? Amber, via email A: It doesn't sound like your employer is supporting you or playing to your strengths. The Apprentice's Karren Brady gives career advice in game of Have You Ever? Request a meeting with your manager to calmly explain how the current set-up is affecting your ability to do your best work. Be specific about what's difficult, such as micro-management, unclear instructions and being questioned on personal matters, and how this is affecting your focus and confidence. Then explain what you need instead – more clarity, trust and autonomy. It's also worth sharing how much you thrived in your previous role and why. At the same time, speak to occupational health or HR about your neurodiversity assessment, as you may be eligible for reasonable adjustments. while at work. Keep a written record of concerning interactions, and don't stop advocating for yourself. Whether it's within this company or somewhere new, you deserve to be in a role and environment that supports your needs and allows you to grow.