Sir Keir Starmer, pictured with Ursula von der Leyen, is pushing his Brexit Bill through Parliament (Image: Getty)
Sir Keir Starmer faces fresh fury over a plot to hand the EU new powers that could allow Brussels to alter UK law. Anger erupted after it was revealed he had ordered ministers to prepare new legislation as his controversial plans to unpick Brexit gathered pace.
It has also emerged that Britain faces handing huge sums to the EU for better access to the single market under Sir Keir’s plans to “reset” relations with the EU. The PM is pushing for closer ties with the bloc under huge pressure from Europhile Labour MPs and ministers, arguing it can boost the economy. Brussels sources have been making clear the government will have to “pay to play” if Labour wants to remove more barriers.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Diplomats told the Financial Times that the bloc’s “red lines” meant the UK would have to obey EU rules and contribute to its budget.
This could potentially run into hundreds of millions of pounds.
The Brexit Bill, which will be fiercely opposed by the Conservatives and Reform UK, is expected to be tabled in Parliament this spring.
It will effectively allow the EU to change British laws in areas such as food standards, animal welfare and pesticide use. And it will mark the first time since Britain left the EU that MPs have been asked to surrender their sovereign right to make laws in certain areas.
Instead, the UK will effectively be expected to comply with regulations from Brussels under a process known as dynamic alignment.
In contrast to when the UK was a member of the EU, the British Government will not have a vote on future laws passed by Brussels that could affect the UK.
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice lashed out at the plans, accusing the Prime Minister of trying to reverse Brexit.
“This EU reset Bill is a blatant effort by Starmer’s Remainers to overturn the democratic will of 17.4million people,” he said.
“They want Britain back under the thumb of the EU rules, taxes and costs. Reform UK will highlight this Government’s betrayal and make Brexit a success when we’re in power.”
A Labour source said: “We have decided we will align with some of the EU’s rules, in the name of easing trade for British businesses and lowering bills for British households.
“The very nature of all international agreements is that they involve shared rules on certain areas.
“Free traders and conservatives have always wrestled with this concept, and the boldest have succeeded when they do not let ideology get in the way.”
Richard Tice accused Sir Keir Starmer of trying to reverse Brexit (Image: Getty)
Ministers say the change in legal jurisdiction will matter little as, since Brexit, UK food manufacturers have largely followed new EU rules because they are supplying to both markets.
They argue the change will mean there is no need for expensive and time-consuming paperwork for farmers and food sellers who want to export their goods to the Continent.
But Richard Wheeler, 55, who runs a 200-acre dairy farm in Cutnall Green, Worcestershire, said: “UK farmers are willing to contend with a bit of paperwork because we’re proud that we work to a higher standard than everyone else.
“What this really is is a precursor for allowing more food into the country that is of a lower quality and doesn’t adhere to our regulations on things like pesticides.
“The first thing I thought when I heard this was: This is Starmer’s next trick of incompetence.
“He’s using the excuse that Brexit isn’t working to take us back to the EU with no clear mandate from the electorate and no seat at the table, and expecting all UK businesses to toe the line regardless of all the unknowns.”
Sir Keir has said he hopes to “go further” in his European reset, but has ruled out rejoining either the customs union or EU single market as “red lines” in his negotiations.
Speaking to the BBC on Sunday, he said he had already taken the “sovereign decision” to align with the EU more closely.
He told Laura Kuenssberg: “I think we should get closer, and if it’s in our national interest to have even closer alignment with the single market, then we should consider that, we should go that far.”
Before Christmas the government announced it is paying £570million to rejoin the Erasmus student exchange programme.
On an annual basis the sum is double what Boris Johnson rejected as too expensive in 2021.
It is equivalent to roughly a fifth of the entire EU funding envelope for Erasmus+, although the government insists a chunk of the money will go on travel for British youngsters.
Worryingly, Brussels has already signalled that a 30% “discount” will not be repeated, meaning the cost could hit £810million a year in future.
Students from Turkey will be eligible to come to the UK in 2027, as the country is an “associate” member of the scheme.
And Brussels has declared it wants to expand the arrangements to cover countries such as Egypt, Algeria and Morocco.
Brexit Betrayal as Britain “Could Pay EU for Single Market Access” in Starmer’s Surrender
Britain’s post-Brexit relationship with the European Union has entered another politically sensitive phase, with renewed debate over whether closer access to the European single market could eventually involve financial contributions from the United Kingdom.
The issue has become particularly controversial because the Labour government has repeatedly insisted that it does not intend to reverse Brexit or return Britain to the single market or customs union.
At the same time, Keir Starmer has argued that Britain should be willing to align more closely with EU rules where doing so is considered to be in the national interest.
In January, Starmer said Britain should consider closer alignment with the single market on an “issue-by-issue, sector-by-sector basis”. He also rejected a return to a customs union, saying Britain had already established trade agreements with countries including the United States and India.
That distinction has become central to the political argument.
Critics describe closer alignment as a potential reversal of Brexit. The government presents it as a pragmatic attempt to reduce barriers to trade while maintaining Britain’s independence from the EU.
The question of paying for access
One of the most contentious elements of the debate is money.
Reports earlier this year raised the possibility that Britain could be asked to make financial contributions in exchange for participation in certain European programmes or deeper access to parts of the single market.
In May, the Standard reported that Starmer was questioned about suggestions that Britain could be asked to pay as much as £1 billion for greater access to the single market. The prime minister did not endorse such a payment in that interview and instead focused on the benefits of Britain’s participation in an EU-backed Ukraine loan scheme.
The wider principle, however, is well established in EU negotiations: deeper participation in European programmes or structures can involve financial contributions.
The Guardian reported that the EU had also sought British contributions to European programmes in other areas, including electricity-market integration and defence procurement.
That does not mean Britain has agreed to pay a specific annual amount for membership of the single market.
Indeed, the available reporting indicates that the UK has not secured such an arrangement.
The distinction matters because the headline claim that Britain “could pay” the EU describes a possible negotiating outcome rather than an agreed policy.
Starmer’s changing relationship with Europe
Starmer’s position has evolved from the more restrictive language used during the 2024 election campaign.
Labour’s manifesto promised that Britain would remain outside the EU, single market, customs union and freedom of movement.
The government’s current policy still formally maintains those red lines.
But Starmer has increasingly argued that Britain should seek closer economic cooperation with Europe where it delivers practical benefits.
In January, he said: “I think we should get closer,” adding that if closer alignment with the single market was in Britain’s national interest, the government should consider going further.
He also explicitly ruled out returning to freedom of movement.
This creates an important distinction between alignment and membership.
Britain can choose to align regulations with EU standards in particular sectors without becoming an EU member. But the more extensive the alignment becomes, the more difficult it can become to separate access from the wider rules governing the single market.
The European Union’s position
The EU has also made clear that Britain cannot simply select whichever elements of the single market it wants.
In May, European ministers said there would be no “cherrypicking” of EU policies and emphasised the principle that the four freedoms of the single market—goods, services, capital and people—are interconnected.
This is a major obstacle for the British government.
London has explored the possibility of establishing much closer arrangements for goods while retaining controls over the movement of people.
The Guardian reported in May that British officials had discussed the creation of a single market for goods with EU counterparts. According to the report, EU officials instead pointed towards options such as a customs union or European Economic Area-style alignment, although UK officials disputed the suggestion that the goods proposal had been definitively rejected.
The disagreement illustrates the limits of the current negotiations.
Britain wants greater economic access while retaining the ability to set its own immigration and trade policies.
The EU wants closer economic integration to come with corresponding obligations.
Why Reform UK is attacking the policy
For Reform UK and Nigel Farage, this issue provides a powerful political dividing line.
Farage has consistently argued that Brexit should mean Britain exercising greater control over its laws, borders and trade policy.
From that perspective, closer regulatory alignment with Brussels can be portrayed as a gradual restoration of EU influence without formally rejoining the organisation.
Reform has therefore attacked Labour’s European policy as an attempt to reverse Brexit indirectly.
Conservative politicians have made similar arguments.
In January, Conservative foreign affairs spokesperson Priti Patel accused Starmer of pursuing single-market alignment and argued that it would restrict Britain’s ability to set its own regulations and negotiate trade agreements.
These are political interpretations rather than evidence that Britain has decided to rejoin the EU.
Nevertheless, they demonstrate how sensitive the issue remains.
Economic arguments on both sides
The government’s case is based largely on trade and economic practicality.
The European Union remains Britain’s largest major trading partner, and Labour argues that reducing unnecessary barriers can help British businesses sell goods and services across Europe.
Starmer has repeatedly framed his European policy around economic growth rather than institutional membership.
The government has also pursued agreements involving food and agricultural products, electricity-market cooperation, emissions trading and youth mobility.
Supporters of closer ties argue that reducing regulatory friction could make it easier for British companies to trade with European customers.
Critics respond that closer alignment can also reduce Britain’s ability to diverge from EU rules and create new financial obligations.
This is the fundamental trade-off at the centre of the argument.
Greater access may come with greater alignment.
Greater independence may come with additional barriers to trade.
The difference between the single market and a free-trade agreement
Another source of confusion is the difference between Britain’s existing relationship with the EU and actual single-market membership.
Britain already has a trade and cooperation agreement with the EU.
That agreement allows substantial trade between the two sides but does not eliminate the customs, regulatory and administrative barriers that exist inside the EU single market.
Membership of the single market would represent a substantially deeper relationship.
The government’s current policy is therefore not simply a choice between “Brexit” and “rejoining Europe”.
There are many possible arrangements between those two positions.
Britain can negotiate individual agreements, align regulations in particular sectors, participate in EU programmes, or seek broader forms of economic integration.
Each arrangement would involve different benefits, costs and political obligations.
The sovereignty argument
The political dispute ultimately comes down to sovereignty.
Brexit supporters place considerable emphasis on Britain’s ability to make its own laws without being required to follow rules established elsewhere.
Closer alignment creates a difficult question: how much regulatory independence is Britain prepared to exchange for easier access to the European market?
The government argues that voluntary alignment is itself an exercise of sovereignty because Britain chooses whether and where to align.
Opponents argue that if British businesses must follow EU rules to trade effectively with Europe, divergence may become difficult regardless of formal independence.
Both perspectives highlight different aspects of the same problem.
What has actually been agreed?
It is important to separate confirmed developments from political speculation.
Britain has not rejoined the European Union.
It has not rejoined the single market.
It has not rejoined the customs union.
Starmer has explicitly ruled out freedom of movement.
At the same time, the government is pursuing closer economic cooperation with Brussels and has said that further alignment with the single market could be considered when it serves Britain’s interests.
The EU has also signalled that deeper integration would come with obligations and has resisted attempts to select individual benefits while excluding wider principles of the single market.
Consequently, claims that Britain has already “surrendered” to Brussels go beyond the confirmed evidence.
But concerns about where the government’s policy could eventually lead are part of a genuine political debate.
A new Brexit battle
The controversy over potential payments to the EU shows that Brexit remains unresolved as a political issue even though Britain formally left the bloc years ago.
Starmer is attempting to build a closer relationship with Europe while maintaining the formal structures of Brexit.
Farage and other Brexit supporters see the same process through a different lens, warning that regulatory alignment and financial contributions could gradually recreate some of the obligations Britain left behind.
The eventual shape of the relationship will depend on negotiations between London and Brussels.
It will also depend on what the British government considers economically worthwhile and politically acceptable.
For voters, the crucial questions are therefore concrete ones.
How much access would Britain receive?
What rules would it have to follow?
Would Britain have to contribute financially?
Would Parliament retain meaningful control over those rules?
Would immigration arrangements change?
And would the economic benefits justify the obligations involved?
Those questions are more precise than the emotionally charged language of “betrayal” or “surrender”.
Britain’s relationship with the EU is moving into a new phase in which the debate is no longer simply about whether Brexit should have happened.
It is increasingly about what Brexit should mean in practice.
Starmer has made clear that he wants closer cooperation where he believes it serves the national interest. The EU has made clear that deeper access cannot necessarily be separated from wider obligations.
That leaves Britain facing a difficult negotiation: how to gain practical economic benefits from its largest neighbouring market while preserving the political choices that Brexit was intended to deliver.
The outcome remains unsettled, and the question of whether greater access should involve financial contributions will ultimately depend on the agreements Britain and the EU negotiate.