Reform leader Nigel Farage campaigning in local elections (Image: Getty)

The aim is to ensure the UK follows single market rules, giving the country access to the EU’s internal market. But critics say it effectively reverses the decision to quit the EU and make Britain an independent nation again.

Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice revealed plans to reverse the move if Mr Farage becomes Prime Minister. He said: “Outrageous. Labour plots to deny MPs vote on new EU sell-out. Reform will reverse such a betrayal.”

Labour has pledged not to return the UK to the EU’s single market, but Sir Keir recently said: “I’m ambitious that we can do more in relation to the single market because I think that’s in our interest.

The EU is warning that market access will require the UK to make a financial contribution to its “cohesion policy”, designed to lift up poorer regions of member states.

The UK-EU reset legislation enabling the use of the so-called Henry VIII powers is expected to be part of the King’s Speech package set out on May 13.

Initial legislation granting the new powers to ministers will go through the usual process of scrutiny. But critics said the plan to allow the use of secondary legislation for dynamic alignment with Brussels – changing the UK’s rules to mirror those set in Brussels to make trade easier – would sideline Westminster.

A government spokesman said: “The Bill will go through Parliament in the normal way.

“Any new treaties or deals with the EU will also face parliamentary scrutiny, and Parliament will have a role in approving new EU laws required under those deals via secondary legislation.

“This will allow us to deliver a food and drink trade deal worth £5.1billion a year, backing British jobs and slashing costly red tape for our farmers, producers and businesses.”

The Government has repeatedly made clear the UK will not rejoin the single market, but Chancellor Rachel Reeves has set out that areas where the UK diverts from the Brussels rules should be the “exception, not the norm”.

The plans under the new “UK-EU reset Bill”, as it has been unofficially called within Whitehall, would give the Government the mechanism to adopt EU rules in areas where it has signed deals with Brussels.

A Whitehall source said: “We are clear Parliament will have a role for new deals and on new EU laws applying under those deals.”

There are circumstances where votes can be held on approving pieces of secondary legislation, but they do not have the same level of scrutiny as a new law.

But any blocking votes would be likely to cause issues with the EU and could spark retaliatory action by Brussels.

They also want to secure a common sanitary and phytosanitary area – which would apply to the movement of plants and food – and agree on a way to link their emissions trading systems by that time.

“Labour’s dire management of the economy has driven Starmer scurrying to Brussels to distract from his own failings.

“Labour are still fighting the referendum because they fundamentally cannot accept the democratic decision the British people made.

“We should be seizing the opportunities of Brexit, however, Starmer’s weakness on the world stage has made this near-impossible.”

Furious Nigel Farage Vows to Reverse Keir Starmer’s ‘Outrageous’ Brexit Betrayal

Nigel Farage has renewed his promise to reverse what he describes as a betrayal of Brexit, putting Britain’s future relationship with the European Union at the centre of Reform UK’s political agenda.

Farage has repeatedly attacked the post-Brexit “reset” pursued by Keir Starmer’s Labour government, arguing that closer regulatory and economic alignment with Brussels risks weakening the independence that Brexit was intended to establish. Reform UK has said that, if it enters government, it would seek to reverse elements of the agreements negotiated by Labour and challenge parts of the existing post-Brexit settlement.

The political context has since changed significantly. Starmer is no longer prime minister. He resigned on 20 July 2026 and was succeeded by Andy Burnham. In his final Downing Street speech, Starmer formally announced his resignation and said he was passing responsibility to Burnham.

Nevertheless, Farage’s criticism of Starmer’s European policy remains relevant because Reform has made opposition to closer EU alignment one of the defining elements of its political programme.

Farage’s argument over Brexit

Farage’s position is rooted in his long-standing interpretation of the 2016 referendum.

In June 2026, marking the tenth anniversary of the referendum, he argued that successive governments had failed to implement Brexit in the way Leave voters expected. Reform’s own account says that the party believes both Conservative and Labour governments subsequently moved away from what it regards as the central promise of Brexit: greater national control over laws, borders and economic policy.

Farage has particularly objected to regulatory alignment with the EU.

For Reform, Brexit was not simply about leaving the European Union institutionally. It was also about Britain’s ability to make its own laws and establish its own trading relationships.

That is why Farage has opposed proposals that would require Britain to follow EU standards in particular sectors.

The House of Lords Library has documented Reform’s position, noting that the party has said it would seek to reverse parts of the Brexit agreements already in force. Farage has argued against “anything to do with alignment” and has said Reform would seek to undo some of the arrangements negotiated by Labour as well as parts of the agreements negotiated by the Conservative government.

What Starmer actually proposed

The description of Starmer’s approach as a “betrayal” is Farage’s political characterization, rather than a neutral description of government policy.

Labour’s stated objective was not to take Britain back into the European Union.

Before entering government, Labour promised to seek a closer working relationship with the EU while maintaining several explicit red lines. The party said it would not seek to rejoin the single market or customs union and would not restore freedom of movement. Instead, it proposed reducing barriers to trade and improving cooperation in areas such as food exports, professional qualifications, security and the movement of touring artists.

Starmer’s government subsequently negotiated a broader post-Brexit relationship with Brussels.

In May 2025, the government described the agreement as a new partnership between an independent Britain and the EU. Starmer said the arrangement would not involve rejoining the single market or customs union and would not restore free movement. It included measures intended to reduce barriers affecting food and agricultural trade and strengthen cooperation in areas including security and defence.

For supporters of the reset, the argument was that Britain could remain outside the EU while reducing some of the economic friction created by Brexit.

For Reform, however, closer alignment carries a different risk: that Britain could gradually become subject to European rules without having a vote in the institutions that make those rules.

That sovereignty argument has become central to Farage’s opposition.

The dispute over EU rules

One of the most important areas of disagreement concerns regulatory alignment.

In April 2026, Starmer said proposed legislation allowing Britain to align with certain EU rules would require parliamentary approval. The government argued that closer alignment could reduce costs for businesses and improve trade while maintaining Britain’s formal independence from the EU.

Brexit supporters criticised the proposal because EU rules would potentially influence British standards even though the UK would remain outside the EU’s political institutions.

Reform’s position is that this would undermine one of the principal reasons for leaving the EU in the first place.

The party therefore wants a much clearer separation between British and European regulatory systems.

This does not necessarily mean that Reform opposes every agreement with European countries. Britain and the EU continue to have substantial economic, security and geographical interests in common. The dispute is primarily about the mechanisms through which cooperation should take place and whether cooperation requires Britain to align itself with EU rules.

Farage’s promise to reverse agreements

Farage has gone further than simply criticising Labour’s policy.

Reform has said that if it enters government it would attempt to reverse agreements that it believes undermine Brexit. The House of Lords Library records Farage’s position that Reform would seek to undo not only new arrangements negotiated under Labour but also elements of the wider Brexit settlement.

That would be a significant undertaking.

International agreements cannot simply be erased by political declaration. Any future government attempting to withdraw from or renegotiate an agreement would have to consider the legal terms of the agreement, Britain’s international obligations and the consequences for trade and diplomatic relations.

The Financial Times previously reported that EU negotiators had even considered provisions designed to make future withdrawal from some proposed arrangements more difficult, reflecting concerns in Brussels about the possibility of a future Reform government reversing Labour’s policies.

The existence of such concerns illustrates the degree to which Farage’s position has become part of the wider UK-EU negotiating calculation.

The economic question

The central disagreement is not only constitutional.

It is also economic.

Starmer’s government argued that reducing barriers to trade with Britain’s largest nearby market could benefit British businesses. The government said its 2025 agreement would make food and agricultural exports easier and reduce some of the bureaucracy facing companies trading with Europe.

Reform takes a different view.

Farage argues that the benefits of regulatory alignment are outweighed by the loss of policy freedom. His position is that Britain should use its independence to develop its own rules and pursue trade agreements around the world rather than move closer to the EU regulatory system.

Neither argument can be reduced to a single economic statistic.

Trade costs, regulatory barriers, investment, market access and political sovereignty all involve different considerations. The eventual economic impact of any change would also depend on how businesses respond and what alternative agreements Britain could negotiate.

The issue has survived Starmer’s departure

Although the headline focuses on Starmer, his departure from Downing Street does not end the argument.

Starmer left office on 20 July 2026, and Andy Burnham became prime minister. Starmer’s final speech explicitly confirmed the transfer of power to Burnham.

Farage subsequently argued that Burnham could be even more willing than Starmer to pursue closer relations with Brussels. In a June 2026 statement, Reform claimed that the EU believed Burnham would be a “softer touch” than Starmer. That is Reform’s political assessment, not an established fact about Burnham’s future policy.

This is important because the argument over Brexit is no longer simply a dispute between Farage and Starmer.

It has become a wider question about the direction of British foreign, trade and regulatory policy under successive governments.

Britain’s relationship with Europe

The UK remains outside the EU, the single market and the customs union.

At the same time, Britain has substantial economic and security relationships with European countries.

That creates a practical tension that any government must manage.

A government can seek closer cooperation without rejoining the EU. It can also seek greater independence while maintaining extensive trade and security relationships with European states.

The political disagreement concerns where the balance should lie.

Farage wants the balance to move decisively towards national regulatory independence. Labour’s approach under Starmer sought greater cooperation while retaining the formal structures of Brexit. The Conservatives have also criticised aspects of Labour’s reset, although their positions have differed from Reform’s on how far to change the existing arrangements.

The European Union, meanwhile, has its own interests. Brussels wants stable agreements that reduce unnecessary trade barriers while ensuring that Britain remains subject to the commitments it accepts.

A continuing Brexit battle

Farage’s promise to reverse Starmer’s alleged “betrayal” is therefore part of a much larger argument about what Brexit ultimately means.

For Reform UK, leaving the EU was intended to provide Britain with maximum freedom to make its own laws, control immigration and negotiate independently around the world. Farage believes closer regulatory alignment risks weakening those gains.

For supporters of the UK-EU reset, cooperation does not necessarily mean reversing Brexit. They argue that Britain can remain outside the EU while rebuilding practical relationships with its largest nearby trading partner.

The distinction between those positions is likely to remain politically significant.

Farage’s language is deliberately forceful because Brexit remains one of the issues most closely associated with his political career. But the practical question facing any future government is more complicated than reversing or defending a single decision.

It involves trade agreements, domestic legislation, international law, regulatory standards and Britain’s wider strategic relationship with Europe.

The debate is therefore unlikely to disappear with Starmer’s departure. Indeed, with Burnham now in Downing Street and Reform continuing to campaign against closer EU alignment, the argument over the meaning and legacy of Brexit has entered another phase.

For Farage, the objective is clear: prevent what he regards as a gradual return towards Brussels and restore what Reform considers to be the full political and regulatory independence promised by Brexit.

Whether that would require renegotiation, withdrawal from particular agreements or a broader restructuring of Britain’s relationship with the EU would ultimately depend on the policies of any future government and the negotiations that followed.

What is clear is that Brexit remains an unresolved fault line in British politics—and Farage intends to keep it at the centre of the debate.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.