Keir Starmer’s Brexit reset is ‘languishing’, according to a new report (Image: AP)

Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of a “complete betrayal of the British people” as he comes under fire from both pro and anti-EU factions for the way he has pursued his “reset” with the bloc. The cross-party Foreign Affairs committee calls today for future agreements with the EU to be put to a vote in Parliament. It also wants a dedicated committee set up to scrutinise the country’s dealings with the EU and is pushing for the Government to set out a “coherent vision” for Britain’s relationship with the union in a White Paper.

Brexiteers warn Sir Keir is putting “British sovereignty on a silver platter” with his support for closer alignment with the EU, less than a decade after the country voted to break away in the historic referendum. But now even Labour voices are giving a withering verdict on his handling of relations with Brussels.

Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more

I would like to receive emails from the Daily Express featuring our latest products, services, offers, and promotions from across the Reach Plc family.

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.

Dame Emily called on the Government to “end its secrecy over EU matters, and set out exactly what it plans to do in the next phase of negotiations”.

Reform UK’s Richard Tice MP responded, saying: “Sir Keir Starmer’s Brexit reset has lost support even within his own party. It is a complete betrayal of the British people, and it will drag us back under EU control through a new customs deal and an uncapped youth mobility scheme that weakens our borders. “Starmer is choosing to hand back our sovereignty.”

Veteran Brexiteer John Longworth, chairman of the Independence Business Network, said: “It is comforting that even pro-EU MPs are expressing concern about Starmer’s reset giveaway, with no benefit to the UK… This government is a risk to national security.”

John Longworth is heartened by cross-party expressions of concern (Image: Jonathan Buckmaster)

He claimed: “Throughout the EU reset, the Government has given the EU everything it wa

Keir Starmer has just ‘surrendered sovereignty on silver platter’ in shameful Brexit reset

Keir Starmer’s Brexit reset has reopened one of Britain’s most politically sensitive arguments: how far can the United Kingdom move towards closer cooperation with the European Union without giving up the regulatory independence that Brexit was intended to restore?

Critics of the former prime minister’s approach have used some of the strongest possible language, accusing Starmer of having effectively placed British sovereignty “on a silver platter” in pursuit of closer relations with Brussels. The phrase is political rhetoric rather than a description of a formal transfer of sovereignty, but it captures the central objection from Brexit supporters: that closer regulatory alignment could gradually make Britain subject to rules it no longer has a direct vote on.

The reality is more complicated.

The Labour government’s EU reset was explicitly designed to improve Britain’s relationship with the bloc while maintaining its formal status outside the European Union. The government has repeatedly said that it would not seek to rejoin the single market or customs union and would not restore freedom of movement. Those red lines were part of Labour’s 2024 manifesto and remained central to its stated approach to the reset.

Yet the practical agreements being discussed with Brussels have inevitably raised questions about how much regulatory autonomy Britain is prepared to exercise in exchange for lower trade barriers.

What the reset actually involves

The UK-EU reset did not begin with a decision to reverse Brexit.

After Labour came to office in 2024, the government sought closer cooperation with European partners in areas ranging from food and agricultural standards to energy, defence, education and trade. The May 2025 UK-EU summit produced a strategic partnership and a Common Understanding covering a broad range of future cooperation.

The negotiations subsequently expanded.

By 2026, Brussels and London were discussing agreements involving electricity trading, emissions trading, food standards and youth mobility, among other issues. The EU Council has formally authorised negotiations on electricity and cohesion arrangements and agreed terms for Britain’s participation in Erasmus+ for 2027.

For supporters of the reset, these arrangements are examples of pragmatic cooperation between two closely connected economies.

For opponents, however, they raise a fundamental constitutional question: if Britain voluntarily aligns itself with European rules, particularly rules that can evolve after the agreement is made, how meaningful is regulatory sovereignty in practice?

That distinction lies at the heart of the controversy.

The battle over “dynamic alignment”

Few phrases have generated as much concern among Brexit supporters as “dynamic alignment”.

The principle is relatively straightforward. Where Britain and the EU agree that common rules would reduce barriers, the UK could align its regulations with corresponding European rules.

The government’s position is that this would be a sovereign choice.

In a parliamentary answer in June 2026, Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds said the government had made a “sovereign choice” to align with EU rules where it considered that to be in Britain’s national interest. He also argued that Parliament would retain its role in approving legislation before new rules applied domestically.

That is an important distinction.

Britain would not formally become an EU member state merely because it chose to replicate particular European regulations. Parliament would retain the legal ability to reject or amend domestic legislation.

But critics argue that the political and economic consequences can be more complicated.

If British exporters need to satisfy EU rules to sell into the UK’s largest nearby market, governments may have powerful incentives to maintain regulatory compatibility. Once Britain has negotiated an agreement dependent on common standards, deliberately moving away from those standards could potentially recreate the trade barriers the agreement was designed to remove.

In that sense, the argument is less about a legal surrender of sovereignty and more about how much practical freedom governments would be willing to exercise.

Critics see a “one-way street”

Brexit supporters have argued that regulatory alignment could gradually become a one-way process.

Their concern is that Britain could end up following European standards because doing so is economically convenient, while British ministers and MPs would have no formal vote when those standards were originally decided in Brussels.

The criticism has been particularly forceful from organisations campaigning against closer EU integration. Briefings for Britain, for example, has described the reset as creating sovereignty risks and argued that dynamic alignment could result in Britain following EU rules without equivalent representation in EU institutions. Those are the organisation’s arguments, rather than an established description of the constitutional effect of the agreements.

Other legal analysis has reached a different conclusion.

Public Law for Everyone has argued that dynamic alignment would not, by itself, be unconstitutional or inherently undemocratic, because Parliament could legislate domestically to give effect to European standards. Its analysis nevertheless recognises the important constitutional question surrounding mechanisms that might allow British law to keep pace with changing EU regulations.

That disagreement illustrates why the sovereignty argument remains so contentious.

The economic case for closer cooperation

The government’s case rests heavily on reducing friction.

Britain remains geographically and economically intertwined with the European Union. The EU is a major trading partner, and businesses on both sides have faced additional procedures since Brexit.

The European relationship therefore presents a basic trade-off.

Greater regulatory compatibility can make cross-border trade easier. But the closer the UK aligns itself with EU standards, the smaller the practical regulatory gap becomes between Britain and the bloc.

The government’s argument is that sovereignty means having the freedom to choose alignment when it benefits Britain.

Critics counter that sovereignty is not merely the ability to choose a rule once. They argue it also means preserving the ability to diverge later, even when divergence carries an economic cost.

That is ultimately a political and constitutional argument rather than a simple legal question.

Parliament has raised concerns of its own

The controversy is not confined to Reform UK or Eurosceptic campaigners.

The House of Commons Business and Trade Committee published a critical assessment in June 2026, warning about what it called a “rhetoric-reality gap” surrounding the reset.

The committee highlighted limited progress in several areas, uncertainty surrounding Britain’s strategic objectives and continuing disagreement over dynamic alignment. It also noted government estimates suggesting that the current reset could add around 0.5% to UK GDP by 2040 in an optimistic scenario.

The committee’s intervention is significant because it demonstrates that the debate is not simply about whether Britain should be “pro-European” or “anti-European”.

There are practical questions about what Britain is receiving in return for every additional commitment.

How much access is gained?

What rules must Britain follow?

What financial contribution is required?

What safeguards exist?

How much influence does Britain have over the rules?

And what happens if a future British government decides that alignment is no longer in the national interest?

These questions are likely to matter more than political slogans.

Gibraltar provides another example

The evolution of the post-Brexit relationship can also be seen in the agreement concerning Gibraltar.

In July 2026, the UK signed a treaty with the EU designed to facilitate movement across the Gibraltar-Spain border. The British government said the agreement protected British sovereignty and UK military facilities while removing practical barriers that had threatened the territory’s economy.

The agreement demonstrates the complexity of post-Brexit diplomacy.

Britain can negotiate closer arrangements with European institutions while remaining outside the EU. At the same time, such arrangements can require compromises that would not have been necessary under full membership or under a completely detached relationship.

That is the fundamental territory occupied by the Brexit reset.

It is neither simply “Brexit reversed” nor a relationship completely unchanged from the years immediately after Britain’s departure.

The sovereignty argument will not disappear

The most important point is that Britain has not formally surrendered its national sovereignty to the European Union.

The UK remains outside the EU.

British ministers remain responsible to the British Parliament.

The government maintains that future regulatory alignment will be a sovereign decision and that Parliament will retain legislative authority.

But that does not make the criticism irrelevant.

A country can retain formal legal sovereignty while choosing to constrain its freedom of action through international agreements. The real political question is therefore how far Britain should use that freedom to align with European rules.

Supporters see alignment as a tool for reducing unnecessary barriers.

Opponents see it as a potential erosion of the independence Brexit was meant to provide.

Neither description should be confused with the legal fact that Britain has rejoined the EU — it has not.

The argument is instead about the practical meaning of Brexit in the years that followed.

Starmer’s legacy and the next phase

The debate has also outlived Starmer’s time in Downing Street.

By July 2026, Andy Burnham had become prime minister, while European leaders were openly hoping that the thaw initiated under Starmer would continue. The Guardian reported that EU leaders welcomed the prospect of closer ties with Burnham’s government, even as the new administration placed greater emphasis on domestic policy.

That makes the question of Starmer’s Brexit reset particularly important.

If future governments continue expanding cooperation with Brussels, critics may argue that the cumulative effect represents a gradual reversal of Brexit.

If governments instead maintain strict limits on regulatory alignment and refuse movement towards the single market, customs union or freedom of movement, they can argue that the reset is about practical cooperation rather than membership.

The distinction will ultimately be determined by the agreements Britain signs, the legislation Parliament passes and the choices future governments make.

For now, “surrendered sovereignty on a silver platter” remains a political accusation rather than an established description of Britain’s constitutional position.

But the controversy behind the phrase is real.

Brexit settled Britain’s membership of the European Union. It did not settle the question of how closely Britain should cooperate with its largest neighbouring political and economic bloc.

That debate is now entering its next chapter — and the decisions taken over regulatory alignment, energy, trade, defence and mobility will determine what Brexit means in practice for years to come.

nts to ensure Britain is an uncompetitive, captive market for EU goods and produce… The EU is a declining market, and Britain should not realign with it.”