The hard truth about Starmer’s Brexit reset deal

The government’s “Brexit reset” indicates that there are pockets of real competence in Keir Starmer’s administration.

Its early days were characterised by a string of unforced errors and bad choices. However, after securing a trade deal with India, and an agreement with the US to at least limit the damage of Donald Trump’s tariffs, the modest reset in UK-EU relations is perhaps the prime minister’s most impressive achievement to date.

It is also an example of the government belatedly listening to business and doing the right thing for the economy. Were this with anyone other than Europe, it would be cheered to the rafters. The trouble is, it is with the EU – and because deals invariably mean giving up something that the other side wants in return, the Euro-phobes have pounced.

The biggest give in this case is fishing. The EU wanted access to UK waters for its boats, something it already has as part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed by Boris Johnson. This extends that for another 12 years. Cue sound and fury and accusations of “selling out” Britain’s fishermen, even though a substantial chunk of the British fleet is owned by EU-based businesses.

It is notable that some of those now screaming “sellout!” had precious little to say about the impact on UK farmers of the free trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, signed by the previous Conservative government, or even of Labour’s pact with Donald Trump.

All three of those make things tougher for livestock farmers, who might justifiably ask those portraying themselves as defenders of British fishing why it was OK to throw them over the side of the boat. The National Farmers’ Union has also expressed concerns about the bioethanol components of the US deal. But it seems arable farmers similarly lack clout.

The fact of the matter is that the concession over fishing – which won’t actually change much – is like half a plate full of whitebait when set against the gains in other areas, particularly the reduction of some of the trade barriers that have been crippling the UK’s economy and leading to higher prices for consumers.

Another concession will see the UK aligning with EU veterinary and food standards – not too much of a give when one considers that the UK already has high standards and that consumers value them, in return for fewer checks at customs. The SPS – sanitary and phytosanitary – deal is a win for all those involved, including farmers and retailers, who have been screaming until they’re blue in the face about the difficulties they’ve been grappling with.

Here’s the British Retail Consortium: “The removal of veterinary checks is good news for retailers and consumers alike. It will help keep costs down and create greater security in retail supply chains, ensuring the ongoing availability of key food imports for British shoppers.

“As well as supporting growth for exporters to the UK’s biggest export market, retailers operating in the EU will also see a huge reduction in the unnecessary processes, paperwork and administrative burden.”

The attempt to portray this as anything other than beneficial is frankly bananas, although I don’t think it affects them. Oranges, then? Britain’s food and veterinary standards often exceeded EU minimums when it was part of the bloc. So to characterise this as some sort of surrender is utterly ridiculous.

Downing Street has claimed it will add £9bn to the UK economy – and while I’ve no doubt that figure rests on optimistic assumptions, the latter will certainly benefit. Of course it will. The EU is the UK’s biggest export market. QED.

Further negotiations are promised on a youth mobility scheme, another potential win for both sides, and on defence cooperation, with the UK angling for its sizeable defence industry to be allowed to take part in the continent’s re-armament.

The two sides linking their carbon markets to avoid taxes on carbon-intensive goods – think steel, or cement, moving each way – is an under-rated plus. But perhaps the most obvious win for ordinary Britons – a canny one from the perspective of improving relations – is that British holidaymakers will be able to use fast e-gates at more European airports.

All this merits a much-needed silver star on the government’s ugly early report card. The polling clearly shows that the public’s eyes don’t “go funny” (Michael Heseltine once suggested that this was a symptom of some of his Brexit-backing colleagues) when it comes to deals with Europe. They’d rather live in a world that works a bit better.

The hard truth is that, as welcome as this is, it still isn’t as good as what the UK had with EU membership. Nor does it even offer the same benefits as membership of the European single market. It’s a baby step in the right direction, but no more than that.

In a world plagued by uncertainty, underlining the critical importance of stable supply chains and cooperation with our neighbours, it is still a very welcome development. But a full-throated endorsement should be withheld until Starmer has proved that he can use it as a stepping stone to go further.

More is required to help turn around a sickly economy.