Keir Starmer’s EU Reset: A Strategy Built on Falsehoods

[Social Media]

 

Keir Starmer’s proposal to reset the UK’s relationship with the European Union has raised significant concerns, with critics arguing that his strategy is unlikely to secure a better deal for Britain. Labour’s willingness to offer concessions in exchange for a more cordial atmosphere and an annual summit with the EU evokes memories of post-Brexit negotiations.

 

Much like in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, British emissaries are traveling to Brussels for discussions, facing familiar criticisms of the UK's negotiating tactics. The UK's expectations are being met with disdain behind closed doors, as the EU sets preconditions on topics of interest before Britain can address its own concerns. There are even rumors of a return for Olly Robbins, who played a prominent role in Theresa May’s Brexit negotiations, further deepening the sense of déjà vu.

 

The fear surrounding Starmer’s plan to “reset” relations with the EU stems from Labour’s perceived naivety about international diplomacy. The EU has a vested interest in drawing Britain into a series of one-sided concessions, and they are skilled negotiators who can achieve that goal. Unsurprisingly, Starmer has expressed his desire to avoid a “running commentary” on the negotiations and hopes for a “respectful” tone. By keeping the details hidden, it appears he is attempting to avoid shedding light on the substance of the talks.

 

At the start of any negotiation, it is crucial to have a clear understanding of what is in the national interest and what can be conceded to achieve those objectives. However, it seems Starmer may not be applying this necessary level of scrutiny. Labour’s stated goals are to “reset” relations, reduce “friction,” secure a foreign policy and security agreement, and establish a food and veterinary arrangement. Yet, the first two goals are merely matters of tone, easily achieved by conceding significant points to improve the atmosphere, as was the case during negotiations under Theresa May and Rishi Sunak.

 

Securing a foreign policy agreement benefits the EU more than the UK, given that Britain is already allied with most EU member states through NATO. Such an agreement could bind Britain to dealing with foreign policy through EU channels, enabling the EU to set terms for military procurement and drawing the UK into supporting the EU’s own military ambitions.

 

These plans, recently criticized by NATO’s outgoing secretary general, seem to offer little benefit to Britain. The necessity of a food and veterinary agreement is similarly unclear, as unprocessed agricultural exports make up only 0.5 percent of the UK's total exports, and most exporters have already adapted to post-Brexit trade rules. While the EU may seek to make Britain a captive market for its more expensive food products, it is not apparent why this would benefit the UK.

 

Labour’s approach seems likely to involve conceding on these issues without securing valuable returns. The EU has made it clear that topics such as foreign policy and food standards cannot be discussed until Britain agrees to their demands, including a youth mobility agreement and guaranteed access to British fishing waters. The idea of allowing further EU access to UK fishing grounds should be a non-starter, yet Labour’s willingness to negotiate raises concerns. The youth mobility agreement on offer is similarly lopsided, as it would allow young people from any EU country to work in the UK, while British youth would only gain access to one EU country.

 

This negotiation has an odd dynamic in which Britain seems poised to make all the substantive concessions in return for little more than a better diplomatic tone and an annual summit. These gains could easily be revoked if the EU later decides to apply pressure on the UK again. Labour’s romanticized view of the EU as a progressive project obscures the realities of power politics. The party sees Brexit as a failure, and Starmer’s concessions are framed as part of the process of reintegrating Britain into the global order.

 

However, the EU is far from the idealized institution Labour envisions. It is a community that sets aside law when it serves its agenda and is quick to pressure weaker countries. Successful negotiations with the EU require clarity, firmness, and a willingness to walk away when necessary. Unfortunately, it appears that Labour is unwilling to adopt this approach. As a result, Britain may soon find itself locked into another unfavorable deal, one that will become impossible to reverse once agreed. The time to challenge this strategy is now, before it is too late.

 

Based on a report from Daily Telegraph 2024-10-05

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

It dawns on the Telegraph that giving up the multiple concessions the UK had enjoyed within the EU wasn’t a good idea.

 

Expect someone in their editorial office has lost the keys to their bulging project fear filing cabinets.

[herfiehandbag]

So begins Starmer's long slow surrender to the demands of the EU. It will take several years, but it will be complete. You can bet your bottom dollar (Euro?) that it will be kept clear of Parliament, and all favours will be called in to ensure that it does not receive proper public or press scrutiny. It all has a familiar ring to It doesn't it?

 

The EU bureaucracy cannot tolerate a major independent economy, physically adjacent to it's own. It has to gain control of it, it's existential for them. 

 

The government know that it cannot rely on support from it's population, so will not consult or involve them.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

So begins Starmer's long slow surrender to the demands of the EU. It will take several years, but it will be complete. You can bet your bottom dollar (Euro?) that it will be kept clear of Parliament, and all favours will be called in to ensure that it does not receive proper public or press scrutiny. It all has a familiar ring to It doesn't it?

 

The EU bureaucracy cannot tolerate a major independent economy, physically adjacent to it's own. It has to gain control of it, it's existential for them. 

 

The government know that it cannot rely on support from it's population, so will not consult or involve them.

 

 

Because of course it is Starmer who prorogued Parliament and he has sway over the UK’s predominantly rightwing press.

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Chomper Higgot

[Purdey]

Typical Daily Telegraph fear-mongering. Can't find facts? Make stuff up.

[newbee2022]

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Keir Starmer’s proposal to reset the UK’s relationship with the European Union has raised significant concerns, with critics arguing that his strategy is unlikely to secure a better deal for Britain. Labour’s willingness to offer concessions in exchange for a more cordial atmosphere and an annual summit with the EU evokes memories of post-Brexit negotiations.

 

Much like in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, British emissaries are traveling to Brussels for discussions, facing familiar criticisms of the UK's negotiating tactics. The UK's expectations are being met with disdain behind closed doors, as the EU sets preconditions on topics of interest before Britain can address its own concerns. There are even rumors of a return for Olly Robbins, who played a prominent role in Theresa May’s Brexit negotiations, further deepening the sense of déjà vu.

 

The fear surrounding Starmer’s plan to “reset” relations with the EU stems from Labour’s perceived naivety about international diplomacy. The EU has a vested interest in drawing Britain into a series of one-sided concessions, and they are skilled negotiators who can achieve that goal. Unsurprisingly, Starmer has expressed his desire to avoid a “running commentary” on the negotiations and hopes for a “respectful” tone. By keeping the details hidden, it appears he is attempting to avoid shedding light on the substance of the talks.

 

At the start of any negotiation, it is crucial to have a clear understanding of what is in the national interest and what can be conceded to achieve those objectives. However, it seems Starmer may not be applying this necessary level of scrutiny. Labour’s stated goals are to “reset” relations, reduce “friction,” secure a foreign policy and security agreement, and establish a food and veterinary arrangement. Yet, the first two goals are merely matters of tone, easily achieved by conceding significant points to improve the atmosphere, as was the case during negotiations under Theresa May and Rishi Sunak.

 

 

Securing a foreign policy agreement benefits the EU more than the UK, given that Britain is already allied with most EU member states through NATO. Such an agreement could bind Britain to dealing with foreign policy through EU channels, enabling the EU to set terms for military procurement and drawing the UK into supporting the EU’s own military ambitions.

 

These plans, recently criticized by NATO’s outgoing secretary general, seem to offer little benefit to Britain. The necessity of a food and veterinary agreement is similarly unclear, as unprocessed agricultural exports make up only 0.5 percent of the UK's total exports, and most exporters have already adapted to post-Brexit trade rules. While the EU may seek to make Britain a captive market for its more expensive food products, it is not apparent why this would benefit the UK.

 

Labour’s approach seems likely to involve conceding on these issues without securing valuable returns. The EU has made it clear that topics such as foreign policy and food standards cannot be discussed until Britain agrees to their demands, including a youth mobility agreement and guaranteed access to British fishing waters. The idea of allowing further EU access to UK fishing grounds should be a non-starter, yet Labour’s willingness to negotiate raises concerns. The youth mobility agreement on offer is similarly lopsided, as it would allow young people from any EU country to work in the UK, while British youth would only gain access to one EU country.

 

This negotiation has an odd dynamic in which Britain seems poised to make all the substantive concessions in return for little more than a better diplomatic tone and an annual summit. These gains could easily be revoked if the EU later decides to apply pressure on the UK again. Labour’s romanticized view of the EU as a progressive project obscures the realities of power politics. The party sees Brexit as a failure, and Starmer’s concessions are framed as part of the process of reintegrating Britain into the global order.

 

However, the EU is far from the idealized institution Labour envisions. It is a community that sets aside law when it serves its agenda and is quick to pressure weaker countries. Successful negotiations with the EU require clarity, firmness, and a willingness to walk away when necessary. Unfortunately, it appears that Labour is unwilling to adopt this approach. As a result, Britain may soon find itself locked into another unfavorable deal, one that will become impossible to reverse once agreed. The time to challenge this strategy is now, before it is too late.

 

Based on a report from Daily Telegraph 2024-10-05

 

 

 

The writer is obviously a hater. Hating everything in connection to EU.

And forgot he is on the way from GB to UK to LB (little Britain) The EU however could be the saving life line.

[jippytum]

This man is proving to be an enemy within Briish policts.  

Wanting to re join the EU and having to repay thousands in inconceived freebies. 

As a  former top ranking King's prosecutor  he should know better. The British people have been lied to by a two faced lier

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, jippytum said:

This man is proving to be an enemy within Briish policts.  

Wanting to re join the EU and having to repay thousands in inconceived freebies. 

As a  former top ranking King's prosecutor  he should know better. The British people have been lied to by a two faced lier

Enemy?

[James105]

37 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Enemy?

 

He does not represent the interests of the British people or the country.   Every action taken so far has been to weaken the UK.   The clowns are now going to create a £22bn black hole by spending this amount of taxpayers money on carbon capture (an unproven technology) so their friends in the oil industry can keep burning oil.   Was this in the manifesto?  Of course it wasn't.    

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/04/labour-to-commit-almost-22bn-to-fund-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects

 

At some point even you will have to concede that these people are clowns who are either outrageously corrupt or outrageously stupid.  

[herfiehandbag]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because of course it is Starmer who prorogued Parliament and he has sway over the UK’s predominantly rightwing press.

 

 

Prorogation of Parliament was in 2019 - 5 years ago! Incidentally, didn't Boris win a landslide victory on the matter, principally, of leaving the EU shortly after. That the Tories were stupid enough to spaff it up the wall subsequently is neither here nor there. Personally, I rather suspect that if they had a shred of self discipline they would still be in power.

 

The political leanings of the UK Press is irrelevant, and arguably any such bias in printed media is perhaps more than compensated for in the broadcast media.

 

Touch of the "but, but, but Boris" I would suggest!

[Chomper Higgot]

37 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Prorogation of Parliament was in 2019 - 5 years ago! Incidentally, didn't Boris win a landslide victory on the matter, principally, of leaving the EU shortly after. That the Tories were stupid enough to spaff it up the wall subsequently is neither here nor there. Personally, I rather suspect that if they had a shred of self discipline they would still be in power.

 

The political leanings of the UK Press is irrelevant, and arguably any such bias in printed media is perhaps more than compensated for in the broadcast media.

 

Touch of the "but, but, but Boris" I would suggest!

A far bigger splodge of accusing Starmer of things he hasn’t done but which the previous party of power did do.

 

If you are going to claim a sitting MP is going to call in favors with ‘the press’ then the political leanings of ‘the press’ absolutely do matter.

 

The idea of Starmer calling in favors with ‘the press’ is risible. 

[Red Forever]

More anti EU drivel from the Torygraph.

Here's the thing: Every 5 years the UK electorate has a vote in a parliamentary election. This is democracy.

In 2016 the electorate (well, 37% of them) voted by a wafer thin majority to leave EU.

Why are the Little Englanders who voted Leave not calling for another referendum after 8 years years of chaos, if only to prove that their vote was wise?

Tell ya why. Cos they're frit!

Starmer is cleverly not provoking the "you lost, get over it mob".

Rejoin!

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

 

He does not represent the interests of the British people or the country.   Every action taken so far has been to weaken the UK.   The clowns are now going to create a £22bn black hole by spending this amount of taxpayers money on carbon capture (an unproven technology) so their friends in the oil industry can keep burning oil.   Was this in the manifesto?  Of course it wasn't.    

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/04/labour-to-commit-almost-22bn-to-fund-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects

 

At some point even you will have to concede that these people are clowns who are either outrageously corrupt or outrageously stupid.  

That’s a good article, but it does not support your claim that Starmer is not representing the interests of the British people.

Capital investment is not a ‘black hole’.

 

[frank83628]

9 minutes ago, Red Forever said:

More anti EU drivel from the Torygraph.

Here's the thing: Every 5 years the UK electorate has a vote in a parliamentary election. This is democracy.

In 2016 the electorate (well, 37% of them) voted by a wafer thin majority to leave EU.

Why are the Little Englanders who voted Leave not calling for another referendum after 8 years years of chaos, if only to prove that their vote was wise?

Tell ya why. Cos they're frit!

Starmer is cleverly not provoking the "you lost, get over it mob".

Rejoin!

then more should have voted 'remain' and you would have won, but the people spoke, thats how democracy works , right?

[RayC]

This article - which is almost entirely devoid of anything that might be considered a fact - was written by Lord David Frost: That's right, the very same David Frost who was Boris Johnson's Chief Brexit negotiator, and who was instrumental in negotiating the existing EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement, which almost everyone - Leaver or Remainer - agrees is a bad deal for the UK.

 

The UK had a bad hand to play during the Brexit negotiations; Frost made that hand worse by his incorrect reading - and inept playing - of the situation.

 

He now has the gall to lecture others on how to negotiate with the EU. You couldn't make this up if you tried.