UK-EU Brexit Reset Deal Unveiled: EU Gleefully Leaks The Details

 

London, May 19, 2025 – At midday today, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer stood alongside EU leaders to unveil the long-anticipated "Brexit reset" deal, a cornerstone of his administration’s agenda to rebuild ties with the European Union. The agreement, which has been in negotiation for months, aims to ease trade barriers, enhance cooperation on security, and address contentious issues like fishing rights, food standards, and youth mobility. However, the deal has sparked fierce criticism from Brexiteers and even some Remain supporters, with many questioning whether the UK has conceded too much for too little in return.

Summary of the Brexit Reset Deal

 

The deal, detailed in leaks first published by The Telegraph (via Joe Barnes, Post ID: 1924404228501430598), focuses on several key areas:

 

1. Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement: The UK has agreed to dynamic alignment with EU food and agricultural standards, as confirmed by European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič (Independent, May 19, 2025). This reduces red tape for exporters and minimises checks on goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, a controversial clause subjects the SPS Agreement to a dispute resolution mechanism where the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) remains the ultimate authority on EU law matters (Harry Cole, Post ID: 1924406549121769779). Additionally, the UK will make a financial contribution to the EU to cover associated costs (Harry Cole, Post ID: 1924407278842630278).
2. Fishing Rights: A significant sticking point in negotiations, the UK has granted EU fishermen access to British waters for 12 years, a concession that has drawn ire from Scottish representatives and Brexiteers like Liz Truss, who argue it betrays the fishing industry (The Telegraph). This follows reports of EU pressure, with some member states, particularly France, linking fishing rights to broader trade and security agreements (UK in a Changing Europe, April 25, 2025).
3. Youth Mobility and University Fees: The deal includes a youth mobility scheme for 18- to 40-year-olds, allowing limited live-and-work opportunities between the UK and EU, similar to agreements the UK has with countries like Australia. However, EU member states criticised the cap on numbers as too low (Independent, May 15, 2025). On university fees, negotiations faltered over a £1 billion gap, as EU students pay significantly higher fees than UK students, and no major concessions were secured.
4. Trade and Security Cooperation: The agreement builds on the existing Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), aiming for sector-by-sector mutual recognition deals to boost UK services (Independent, May 19, 2025). Security cooperation was also a focus, though the EU’s deliberate linkage of fishing rights to energy cooperation (expiring on the same day under the TCA) signals potential leverage in future disputes (UK in a Changing Europe, April 25, 2025).

Analysis: Who Benefits More – The UK or the EU?

 

The gleeful tone of the leaks, which originated from EU sources rather than the UK, suggests that the EU feels it has secured the better end of the deal. Several factors support this perception:

 

• SPS Alignment and CJEU Oversight: The EU has successfully imposed dynamic alignment on the UK, ensuring British regulations mirror EU standards over time. The CJEU’s role as the ultimate arbiter in disputes (Harry Cole, Post ID: 1924406549121769779) effectively extends EU legal oversight into UK affairs, a major win for Brussels in maintaining control over its rules’ interpretation. For the UK, this compromises the sovereignty that Brexit was meant to reclaim, as critics like Stephen Van Meegeren (Post ID: 1924415741178065375) argue it risks “breaking” the country.
• Financial Contributions: The UK’s agreement to pay the EU for SPS-related costs (Harry Cole, Post ID: 1924407278842630278) has been met with derision, with many questioning why Britain is funding EU operations post-Brexit. This financial obligation, coupled with no clear reciprocal financial benefit, tilts the balance in the EU’s favour.
• Fishing Rights Concession: The 12-year access to UK waters for EU fishermen is a significant concession, especially given historical imbalances—EU fishers landed five times more fish by value from UK waters than vice versa from 2012-2016 (UK in a Changing Europe, April 25, 2025). The EU, particularly France, pushed hard on this issue, and their success ensures continued economic benefits for their fishing industries, while the UK fishing sector feels sidelined.
• Youth Mobility and Trade Gains: The UK secured a youth mobility scheme and some trade easements, but these are limited. The cap on youth mobility numbers disappointed EU member states (Independent, May 15, 2025), and the trade benefits—while helpful for exporters—are not seen as groundbreaking. The UK’s services sector may see incremental gains, but they pale in comparison to the broader control the EU has retained over standards and dispute resolution.

Overall, the EU appears to have gained more tangible benefits: continued influence over UK regulations, financial contributions, and prolonged access to UK waters. The UK, meanwhile, has secured some practical trade improvements but at the cost of sovereignty, money, and domestic discontent.

 

Criticism and Controversy: Why the Backlash?

 

The deal has drawn sharp criticism from multiple quarters, reflecting deep divisions over the UK’s post-Brexit direction:

 

• Sovereignty Concerns: Critics like Jeremy (@Bankersbonus1, Post ID: 1924416045537751120) argue that the deal effectively means the UK has “rejoined the EU” by accepting CJEU oversight and dynamic alignment. This sentiment echoes Brexiteer fears that the referendum’s 17.4 million voters have been betrayed (Stephen Van Meegeren, Post ID: 1924415741178065375).
• Fishing Rights Outrage: The decision to grant EU fishermen 12-year access to UK waters has been a lightning rod for criticism. Liz Truss and Scottish representatives have lambasted the move, arguing it prioritises EU relations over British interests, especially given the historic overfishing by EU fleets in UK waters (UK in a Changing Europe, April 25, 2025).
• Financial Contributions: The UK’s agreement to pay the EU for SPS costs has been met with incredulity, with many questioning why Britain is footing the bill for EU operations without clear reciprocal benefits. Posts on X, such as Harry Cole’s “KERCHING” (Post ID: 1924407278842630278), highlight the frustration.
• Lack of Tangible Gains: Many critics, including X users like Helin (@LisburneRoad, Post ID: 1924412794654343335), question what the UK has actually gained. The trade easements and youth mobility scheme are seen as minor compared to the concessions on fishing, money, and policy control. Stephen Van Meegeren’s post (Post ID: 1924415741178065375) captures this sentiment, warning that the deal—alongside other policies like “billions to Mauritius” and the “small boat invasion”—risks leaving the country “on its knees.”
• Political Dynamics: With Labour MPs likely to be whipped into supporting the deal in Parliament (as noted by Helin), critics argue the process lacks democratic scrutiny, further fuelling perceptions of a government out of touch with the Brexit mandate.

Why Did the UK Concede So Much?

 

The decision to give away fishing rights, agree to financial contributions, and cede control over policies can be traced to several factors:

 

• EU Leverage: The EU’s strategic linkage of fishing rights to energy cooperation (UK in a Changing Europe, April 25, 2025) gave Brussels significant leverage. The threat of energy disruptions likely pressured the UK into conceding on fishing to secure broader cooperation.
• Starmer’s Pragmatism: Starmer’s growth-oriented agenda has prioritised reducing trade barriers with the EU, even at the cost of sovereignty. The Labour government’s willingness to align with EU regulations, as seen in the Product Standards and Metrology Bill (CITP), reflects a shift from the Conservatives’ hardline stance, aiming for pragmatic economic gains over ideological purity.
• Domestic Political Constraints: With Labour’s parliamentary majority, Starmer may have calculated that he could weather domestic criticism, especially if the deal delivers economic benefits over time. However, this risks alienating both Brexiteers and rejoiners, as warned by a senior UK government figure (Independent, May 15, 2025).

Conclusion: A Deal That Divides

 

The UK-EU Brexit reset deal, unveiled today, marks a significant step in redefining post-Brexit relations, but it has done so at a steep cost to the UK’s sovereignty and domestic goodwill. The EU emerges as the clearer winner, securing influence over UK regulations, financial contributions, and prolonged access to British waters, while the UK’s gains—trade easements and a limited youth mobility scheme—feel underwhelming in comparison.

 

The backlash from Brexiteers, fishing communities, and even some Remain supporters underscores the deal’s divisive nature. Questions about why the UK conceded so much for so little will likely dominate political discourse in the coming weeks, as Starmer faces the challenge of proving that this reset delivers more than it has cost. For now, the gleeful leaks from the EU side tell a story of a deal that benefits Brussels more than Britain—a bitter pill for a nation still grappling with the promises and perils of Brexit.

The EU's Self-Destructive Climate Policy: Forcing Volkswagen to Fund Its Own Demise

In a move that could only be described as self-sabotage, the European Union has crafted a regulatory environment where its car manufacturers, including the likes of Volkswagen (VW), are compelled to pay hundreds of millions of euros to Chinese competitors for carbon credits. This policy not only undermines the competitiveness of European automotive companies but also exposes a glaring inconsistency in the EU's approach to climate policy and industrial strategy.

A Flawed Framework for Emissions Control

The EU's stringent emissions targets for 2025, designed to push the automotive industry towards net zero emissions, have inadvertently put European carmakers at a significant disadvantage. Under these regulations, manufacturers that fail to meet their CO2 emission limits face hefty fines or must purchase carbon credits from companies that surpass their targets. Given the advanced state of electric vehicle (EV) production in China, where companies like BYD and SAIC have made significant strides, European manufacturers like VW find themselves in the absurd position of funding their own competitors.

Economic Impact and Strategic Misstep

The irony here is palpable. By forcing companies like VW to buy carbon credits from Chinese rivals, the EU is effectively subsidising the growth of China's EV industry at the expense of its own. This not only increases costs for European manufacturers but also potentially drives up vehicle prices for European consumers, making European cars less competitive both domestically and on the global market. The Financial Times has reported that this scenario could cost European groups led by VW hundreds of millions in euros, a direct hit to their financial health and market positioning.

Posts on X have captured the public sentiment well, with users describing the situation as "madness in action" and pointing out how this regulation is essentially making European manufacturers finance their own extinction by subsidising Chinese EV production.

Policy Contradictions and Lack of Strategic Vision

The EU's policy appears to be a case of good intentions gone awry. On one hand, the bloc has imposed tariffs on Chinese EVs to protect its market, but on the other, it's forcing its manufacturers to pay these same competitors for carbon credits. This contradiction not only highlights a lack of coherent strategy but also questions the foresight of EU policymakers in balancing environmental goals with economic realities. The enforcement of these policies could be seen as a strategic blunder, pushing European companies into a corner where they must either innovate at a breakneck pace or continue to fund their competitors.

The Need for a Rethink

What's needed is not just a mere adjustment but a complete overhaul of how the EU approaches its climate and industrial policies. The current system punishes innovation by making it more economically viable for companies to buy credits rather than invest in their own green technologies. If the EU is serious about achieving net zero targets without crippling its own industry, it must:

• Promote Innovation: Provide incentives for European companies to develop and produce their own EVs rather than rely on credits from abroad.
• Revise Regulations: Design regulations that do not inadvertently benefit foreign manufacturers over domestic ones.
• Strategic Alliances: Instead of financial penalties, encourage a synergy among European manufacturers or with other regions to share technology and resources for greener production.

Conclusion

The EU's current approach to emissions targets is a lesson in how environmental policy can go awry, leading to unintended economic consequences. By forcing its carmakers to pay Chinese rivals for carbon credits, the EU is not only undermining its automotive sector but also its broader industrial strategy. This policy is a clear example of how regulatory frameworks can become counterproductive when they fail to align with economic realities and strategic foresight. The EU must reassess its policies to ensure they foster innovation and competitiveness rather than penalising its own industry for the supposed greater good of the planet.

The EU's Asset Database

 

Sad news for the citizens of the EU, it seems that their lords and masters are intent on building a database of all the assets held by every EU citizen.

That means every bank account, house/property, investment, piece of jewellery etc owned by people who are EU citizens.

For why?

So that the EU can levy a wealth tax on them!

Germany Nixes Schengen

 

Germany has just announced temporary border controls at all land borders to tackle illegal migration and to protect public from Islamist extremism.

 

The Deputy Head of the Federal Police:

'The crisis in Germany's security is a direct consequence of Schengen's ineffective policies. Schengen's inability to manage migration effectively has put Germany's safety at stake.'

The Social Democrat Party has notified the EU it will bring back all land border controls.

 

The domino effect will be the likely result of this, as other countries in the EU follow suit and restore their border controls.

EU Mourns The Butcher of Tehran

 

The EU expresses its sincere condolences for the death of President Raisi and Foreign Minister Abdollahian, as well as other members of their delegation and crew in a helicopter accident. Our thoughts go to the families.

— Charles Michel (@CharlesMichel) May 20, 2024

EU's Assault On Classic Cars

 

Brussels has its wrenches in a twist again, this time tinkering with a proposal that'll leave classic car enthusiasts spitting oil and vintage van lovers seeing red.

The word on the cobbled streets is that the EU wants to slap a "repair refused" sticker on any car over 15 years old, effectively sending them to the scrapyard in the sky. Now, before you grab your pitchforks and head to the Parliament, let's pop the hood and see what's really under the hood of this policy.

Officially, the EU says it's all about sustainability, wanting to "rejuvenate the vehicle fleet" and reduce emissions. Sounds green, right? But hold on a sec. Scrapping perfectly good (and often beloved) vehicles just to push people into shiny new electrics seems a bit… forced, wouldn't you say?

Here's the rub: not everyone can afford a brand spankin' new Tesla, especially when a trusty old banger does the job just fine. This policy smacks of elitism, pushing folks who rely on affordable transport onto the public transport bus, which ain't exactly known for its charm or punctuality. Plus, let's not forget the skilled mechanics and independent garages who'll see their livelihoods go up in smoke if this rusty regulation rolls through.

Now, the EU claims this only applies to cars with "specific engines" and "extensive damage." But let's be honest, who defines "specific" and "extensive"? This opens the door for bureaucrats to become car overlords, dictating what you can and can't drive based on arbitrary rules. Remember that time they tried to regulate the bendiness of bananas? Yeah, not their finest moment.

This whole policy feels like a backdoor way to push their green agenda, regardless of the human cost. It's time the EU remembered that not everyone drives a Prius, and some of us cherish the roar of a classic engine or the practicality of a well-maintained older car. They should focus on making sustainable options more affordable and accessible, not strong-arming people into them.

Fortunately the UK is no longer in the EU!

The EU Parliament Yesterday - Bonnet de Douche!