BRITAIN IS BACK IN THE EU … AND INSECTS ARE COMING TO YOUR FOOD!

That's it – Brexit, and British freedom and independence are now officially over. Finished. No, I'm not exaggerating. Read on and you will see for yourself. Not only do we now have to accept EU rules – forever – without any ability to refuse these, but we will have to pay for our subservience! Yes, there is no end to Labour's betrayal of Britain and the British people.

Every single element of the 'deal' between the UK and the EU benefits the EU more, much more than it does us. Every. Single. One. This is not surprising, as the final agreed document was clearly written by the EU and makes clear at every stage that the EU is in charge. Indeed, it is called: “A renewed agenda for European Union – United Kingdom cooperation”; note how the “European Union” comes before the “United Kingdom”.

There was no need for any of these changes. We were doing fine, and had completely adapted to life outside the EU. The only reason for this complete capitulation and betrayal is that this is what Starmer wanted. The truth slipped out (but was largely unreported by our left-wing media) in 2023 when Starmer was addressing a conference in Montreal, Canada, where he said: “most of the conflict with the UK being outside of the EU arises in so far as the UK wants to diverge and do different things to the rest of our EU partners … you know actually we don't want to diverge”. So there you have it. Starmer always wanted the UK to be the EU's bitch.

If you read that quote again carefully, you'll see there are in fact three things wrong with it:

(i) Starmer believes that having different views to the EU, or wanting to do things differently, is “conflict”, and this is automatically bad. He does not, however suggest that the EU should follow Britain, oh no, it's always us who have to capitulate like good little slaves and follow the EU. The notion of Britain being an independent and self-confident nation that acts in its own best interests is simply unimaginable to Starmer. [Incidentally, as an aside, it is this mentality - the belief that prioritising British interests is an evil nationalistic thing that Labour must avoid at all costs - which is behind their desire to give away the Chagos islands – and pay billions in the process!]

(ii) He refers to the EU as being our “partners”. NO, they are NOT our partners! And the EU most certainly do NOT see us as their partners. The EU see us as rivals, as competitors, and as opponents who need to be crushed, dominated and vanquished. And this they have now succeeded in doing, thanks to their quisling, Starmer.

(iii) Starmer's vision was always one where the UK does not diverge and we do not do anything differently to the EU. So obviously it then makes sense to just let the EU make all the decisions and we'll follow along behind like the pathetic little poodles that he wants us to be. But then, what's the point of Brexit? Well, obviously there is no point. And that is why we are where we are now: with Brexit effectively overturned. This was always Starmer's objective. So it is not just the EU that got exactly what they wanted, but Starmer has got what he wanted too. The end of British independence.

So what exactly does Starmer's capitulation to the EU mean? Read on. Here is your best guide to the extent of Labour's betrayal of British interests. Make sure EVERYBODY you know sees this!

Fishing

This has caught all the headlines, so I will start here, even though this is not, incredibly, the very worst element of Starmer's surrender. The UK and EU fishing quotas in British waters were due to come up for renegotiation next year, when we would have been able to increase our quotas every year thereafter, thereby helping our fishing industry to rebuild and grow. The truth is, of course, that we should already have complete and unilateral control of our own fishing waters. This is how every independent country acts, but this was betrayed by Bozo the Buffoon. EU-quislings will say that Britain's fishing industry is a tiny part of our economy, but that's the whole point: it is not fulfilling its potential – that's why we should support and grow it!

We should say to the EU that we will let them take the same volume of fish from British waters as British fishermen take from EU waters. That is a fair and balanced and equal approach. Instead, we allow the EU to take SEVEN TIMES MORE fish from our waters than we take from theirs (by value). In money terms, this means that EU fishermen take around £500 million of fish each year from UK waters! No wonder this is so important to them.

So what has Starmer agreed? He has extended the current obscene EU quotas for a further 12 years – until 2038! This is much worse than anybody feared. And Starmer has the absolute gall to pretend this is a good deal by saying this will provide certainty and “stability” because there'll be “no increase in EU quotas in UK waters”! You have to wonder how stupid and gullible he thinks we are. There NEVER WAS going to be any increase in EU quotas – only CUTS. But any hope of that is now lost.

The most revealing moment was when Starmer notes that the current fishing agreement was set to end in 2026, after which there would have been yearly negotiations - Starmer says that would have meant “no stability for anyone”. Here Starmer is copying the words of European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, who talked about the need for “stability” for EU fishermen. And that's what Starmer means when he says “anyone” - he is focused on the needs of EU fishermen, not British ones. Because under the current arrangements British fishermen would have been able to get increased quotas – and while an increase is not 'stable' it is a GOOD THING. We don't want 'stability' if this is stability of poverty!! And in order to try to fob us off Starmer says that the government will invest £360 million in the fishing industry and coastal communities. But investing in coastal communities and the fishing industry was always the plan, and we certainly don't need an agreement with the EU in order to do this!!!

This surrender will be devastating to the fishing industry. Mike Cohen, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, has said the deal is “very, very disappointing” and a “big blow” to Britain’s fishing industry. And Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, spoke for all Britain's fishermen when she said: “This deal is a horror show for Scottish fishermen, far worse than Boris Johnson’s botched Brexit agreement. … At the weekend, Sir Keir said the deal would be measured against how much it would improve job prospects and allow our communities to flourish. Giving away a national asset such as our rich and healthy fishing grounds for no discernible benefit not only fails both of these tests, but is a disgrace that will ensure the enmity of this proud industry for many years to come”.

The final ludicrous nonsense is when Starmer says this EU deal helps us sell more fish - but as we've seen, we will not be allowed to catch any more fish and you can’t sell what you’re not allowed to catch. The most important point to remember is that Britain is a net importer of fish - often buying our own catch back from the EU!

Food standards

Probably the biggest betrayal signed off by Keir Starmer is that the UK will now have to slavishly follow EU sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) rules – ie. standards on animals and plants.

Here is what the agreement says. It is very important to understand it:

What it says: “In terms of its material scope, the SPS Agreement should cover sanitary, phytosanitary, food safety and general consumer protection rules applicable to the production, distribution and consumption of agrifood products, the regulation of live animals and pesticides, the rules on organics as well as marketing standards applicable to certain sectors or products.”

What it means: By including the “production” of agrifood products this means we must now kill off our hugely promising gene edited food industry. The EU does not allow gene editing, because they are so scientifically retarded that they do not understand that this is completely different to genetic manipulation. It has the word 'gene' in it so it must be the same, they think! Fucking retarded mongs. Nobody has picked up on how devastating this is going to be. Gene editing allows the production of food that is healthier, that lasts longer, that can be grown more easily (with less water, fertiliser and insecticides), and that is cheaper. Britons are not as stupid as EU governments: a recent survey found that 69% of UK adults strongly support gene editing, with this increasing to a staggering 80% of Gen Zs who support the technology. Too bad, it's now been flushed down the EU toilet.

What it says: “Within the scope defined above, the SPS Agreement should ensure the application of the same rules at all times by providing for timely dynamic alignment of the rules applicable to and in the United Kingdom acting in respect of Great Britain with all the relevant European Union rules, giving due regard to the United Kingdom’s constitutional and parliamentary procedures; and where necessary to ensure the European Union’s level of food, sanitary, and phytosanitary safety, through the immediate application of the relevant European Union rules”

What it means: “dynamic alignment” means that the UK will have to meekly obey and slavishly copy whatever the EU decides to do at any time in the future. Forever.

What it says: “The United Kingdom should be able to take targeted action to protect its biosecurity and public health, in the same way as Member States under European Union law. In addition, the SPS Agreement should include a short list of limited exceptions to dynamic alignment. An exception could only be agreed if: (i) it does not lead to lower standards as compared to European Union rules, (ii) it does not negatively affect European Union animals and goods being placed on the market in the United Kingdom in respect of Great Britain, and (iii) it respects the principle that only animals and goods compliant with European Union rules move into the European Union.”

What it means: If we want to make any changes to our food rules these have to be agreed by the EU (we have no freedom to act independently) and – and here's the killer – we can't make any changes that “negatively affect European Union animals and goods being placed on the market in the United Kingdom”. So we can't have rules that are better or stricter than those of the EU. And here's the most important point that nobody is mentioning: this means we will have to allow EU food with insects and their larvae maggots to be sold in Britain. Yes, it's true.

In 2021 the EU approved mealworm (beetle maggots) as what they called a “novel food”. This is used as an ingredient of several foods found on EU supermarket shelves, such as bread, biscuits, cakes, etc. Since then, they have authorised an increasing number of other insects, such as locusts, house crickets and both lesser and yellow mealworms. This is obviously a trend that will continue, and we must now accept this in our foods too! Nigel Farage and Reform should be focusing on this – assuming they are even aware of it! Will someone please tell them? I'm pretty sure there is very little public support for eating maggots!

What it says: “The SPS Agreement should be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism with an independent arbitration panel that ensures the Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for all questions of European Union law.”

What it means: The European Court of Justice now has control over the UK once again. We must obey whatever they say. We no longer have judicial freedom, sovereignty or independence. This independence from the ECJ was a key aspect of Brexit and now it's gone. And so Brexit is now over too. We are once again under the control of the EU. Brussels can now dictate to us, permanently and unilaterally.

What it says: “The SPS Agreement should provide for an appropriate financial contribution from the United Kingdom to support the relevant costs associated with the European Union’s work in this policy area.”

What it means: Britain is going to have to PAY THE EU in order to be ruled by them! This is like the Chinese government forcing the families of people who have been executed to pay for the bullets that killed their loved ones! How much will we have to pay? As much as the EU think they can screw out of us. This alignment is supposed to save us maney but we will end up paying instead. And the craxiest part is that the EU will benefit more than us (given that they export more to us than we do to them) - so they should be paying us!!

Starmer says that this will help ease UK food exports to the EU and cut prices in the UK. But what he is not telling you is that only a handful of British food exporters have any problems now – certainly not enough to justify this massive and costly change. Indeed, the only reason the official statistics show a fall in food exports to the EU is because of a statistical change in how the records are kept, as we no longer record the re-exports of imported food (like bananas, oranges and melons) as exports.

A small crumb of comfort is that it will reduce the checks on fresh food going from GB into Northern Ireland, bringing them back into the Union, although of course the best solution to that issue is to simply SCRAP THE WINDSOR AGREEMENT. Sadly, Nigel Farage never seems to mention this. Does he even care about Northern Ireland and the Union?

Overall, making the import and export of agrifoods easier benefits the EU much, much more than it does us: the UK is the EU's biggest market by far – we take 23% of all their exports! In 2023 (the most recent figures available) the UK exported agrifood products worth some £13 billion to the EU, but imported around £43 billion worth! Starmer says that supermarkets are happy because they will be able to import more from the EU and prices will come down, but that's because EU farmers are subsidised more than British ones. Indeed, the increase in food imports is NOT a good thing, even if it is a bit cheaper. In fact, our level of food self-sufficiency and security is at an all-time low.

We have never grown less of the food we need. The amount of food we consume that is grown in this country has fallen from 78% in 1984 to 62% in 2023. Take one of the most basic, everyday foods: chicken. We used to be self-sufficient in chicken. As recently as 2020, 96% of the chicken we ate came from the UK. That fell to 82% in 2023 and since then has fallen off a cliff. Richard Griffiths, chief executive of the British Poultry Council, said it was currently running at “60 to 65% … probably closer to 60 per cent at the moment”. Although most whole chickens sold by supermarkets are British, when it comes to packaged food, supermarkets and their suppliers are increasingly relying on imports. According to the NFU president, Tom Bradshaw: “The vast majority [of supermarkets] are being absolutely duplicitous and the moment they think that poultry becomes invisible — in ready meals or sandwiches — they are importing it from Poland, Brazil or Thailand”.

There are two problems. Firstly, foreign food is usually cheaper because standards are lower (including in the EU, by the way). But secondly, planning costs and restrictions make it almost impossible for British farmers to expand. One farmer, for instance, has complained that to install a couple of new chicken sheds the application process alone would cost between £30,000 and £40,000. And there is, of course, no guarantee that permission would be granted. Adam Couch, the chief executive of Cranswick, a large supplier of pork and poultry to supermarkets, explained that he wanted to build a farm in Norfolk large enough to house 700,000 chickens: “We’ve been in discussion with the local planning authority for coming up to four years”. But when Norfolk finally made a decision guess what? They rejected the application!

And it gets worse! When it comes to vegetables the amount we grow is only 53% of our needs. We’re not even self-sufficient in potatoes, for heaven's sake! This over-reliance on food imports is not only bad for our economy but very dangerous in terms of national security. What if there is another pandemic that disrupts global supplies? Or just a major incident that blocks the Suez Canal? Or simply some disruption at Dover or Felixstowe – the two UK ports we rely on for most of our food imports? The supermarket shelves will empty, there'll be panic buying and people will go hungry. You have been warned!

What we actually need is a government that is really serious about IMPORT SUBSTITUTION – relying on British production rather than on imports. I've never heard Nigel Farage or Reform say anything about this, which is extremely disappointing. The EU believe that neither a future Tory or Reform government would dare go back on any of Starmer's concessions, because they would then threaten to make food trade more difficult again, but we need a government that says 'fine, let's have less trade. Let's have import substitution instead'. And given that we import so much more than we export to the EU, the reduction in imports will allow British farmers to sell all their food to British supermarkets, meaning they will be no worse off at all – indeed, they'll probably be better off! Labour have claimed that being tied to the EU's food standards will boost exports of foods like salmon and shrimps, but the fact is that we import far more of these than we export to the EU, so import substitution can only be GOOD for these industries!

Linking the UK and EU carbon Emission Trading Systems

In another disastrous betrayal of Britain's interests, Starmer has agreed to a “European Union-United Kingdom agreement linking the United Kingdom Emission Trading Scheme (UK ETS) and the European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS)” (Oh yes, the EU gets top billing, as always!).

What it says: “The United Kingdom cap and the United Kingdom reduction pathway will be guided by the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act obligations and Nationally Determined Contributions. They should be at least as ambitious as the European Union cap and the European Union reduction pathway.”

What it means: Britain cannot have lower net zero targets or carbon taxes than the EU. In other words, we cannot have any commercial advantage, and we can’t bring energy bills down for either consumers or businesses. An independent energy consultancy, Watt-Logic, has calculated that net zero is costing us over £17 BILLION per year, and that since 2006 it has cost us around £220 BILLION. This is both madness and a complete tragedy. Just think of all the good we could have done with that money. All wasted …

What it says: “The agreement should provide for an appropriate financial contribution from the United Kingdom to support the relevant costs associated with the European Union’s work in this policy area.”

What it means: We are going to have to PAY to be part of this scheme. How much? Again, nobody knows! I can sense a nasty surprise coming!

What it says: “Within that scope, the agreement should ensure the dynamic alignment of the United Kingdom with the relevant European Union rules underpinning the functioning of the ETS link, giving due regard to the United Kingdom’s constitutional and parliamentary procedures.”

What it means: Look, it's that “dynamic alignment” again! Once again, it means that from now on the EU make all the decisions, and we have to follow and obey whatever they say, no matter how much it costs us. We have no freedom, no choice, no independence and no control. Brexit, what Brexit?

What it says: “The agreement should be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism with an independent arbitration panel that ensures the Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for all questions of European Union law.”

What it means: Yes, you guessed it – we are once again under the thumb of the European Court of Justice! A country without control of its laws and the courts that impose those laws is NOT a free, independent and sovereign country.

Labour have told all sorts of lies about the implications of the UK joining the EU's Emissions Trading System. They say it “will help bring down energy bills in the future and enable businesses to avoid the £7 billion costs of the EU’s carbon border tax” - but hang on: net zero is pushing energy bills UP, not bringing them down, and the maximum saving British companies would make from being excluded from the EU carbon tax would have been some £800 million a year (NOT £7 billion!). And if the EU had put tariffs on UK companies we could simply have retaliated with tariffs on imports from the EU – and guess what? We import a lot, lot more than we export, so we would have been the clear winners in that sort of game!

What is NOT in the agreement

Those are all the things that have been agreed, but what about all the things that are NOT included in Starmer's surrender deal? The agreement leaves out more than it includes, merely listing the issues that need to be discussed further. This is a long and surprising list!

Security and Defence. Although the UK and EU did sign a security and defence agreement today (called the “Security And Defence Partnership Between The European Union And The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland – see how the EU is mentioned first, as always?) this does NOT, surprisingly, and contrary to what we were led to believe, mean an immediate UK entry into the EU’s €150 billion (£126 billion) defence fund to allow UK arms companies to bid for military equipment contracts.

The European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said that the defence and security agreement signed today was merely “the first step” towards British participation in a the scheme. And the UK will have to pay to take part (yet again!), but when Von der Leyen was asked at the press conference how much this would cost us she refused to answer!

I have previously written a very informative article on how the UK is getting screwed by the EU on defence equipment purchasing. If you haven't read it I highly recommend you do so.

Here it is: https://britishpatriot.substack.com/p/starmers-military-betrayal-of-britain

The reality is that the UK joining this scheme will not bring in a single extra penny to the UK. EU governments will continue to do what they have always done: actively and deliberately discriminate against UK companies. Anyone who fails to understand this is quite literally mentally retarded.

Indeed, it's being reported that the French are trying to limit UK firms to accessing just 15% of this fund. The final arrangement has yet to be agreed but we know that the EU has always discriminated against us, always – so how stupid, how moronic, do you have to be to think they will suddenly change now??? This is insanity of the highest order! On the contrary, it is the UK that will end up spending more money. We will have to pay BILLIONS to take part in this defence scheme (the EU is, of course, refusing to say exactly how much, but some estimates are around £10 BILLION), and pay to buy EU military equipment.

E-gates. Probably the most surprising omission is a final agreement on the ability of UK travellers to use the e-gates at EU airports. You have to laugh – this is such a big deal to the perpetual Remainer Remoaners, who keep lying that they have to queue at the passport control for hours when they travel to the EU. The truth is however that many EU airports ALREADY allow UK visitors to use the e-gates. So only a limited number of travellers will save any time. Furthermore, given that EU citizens make up the vast majority of travellers within the EU, often the queue for non-EU passengers is much shorter! So it is debatable how much time will be saved – and in any case we are only talking about a few minutes. Let's get this in proportion: it's about as trivial an issue as you can get!

Nevertheless, the poor little Remainers do keep crying about it, so this was a major issue in these negotiations. But all Starmer got was an agreement to continue talking about this. Actually, the statement in the final text of the agreement is very revealing. It says: “The United Kingdom and the European Commission will continue their exchanges on smooth border management for the benefit of their citizens, including the potential use of eGates where appropriate. They note that European Union citizens can use eGates in the United Kingdom and that there will be no legal barriers to eGate use for British Nationals traveling to and from European Union Member States after the introduction of the European Union Entry/Exit System.”

Did you notice the spelling there? It referred to “British Nationals traveling to and from European Union Member States”. Err, excuse me, but “traveling” is the AMERICAN spelling. In Britain we spell it “travelling”. This proves that this document was written by the EU and simply translated into English, probably using Google Translate.

Did you also notice that it said: “there will be no legal barriers to eGate use for British Nationals”. In other words, EU governments will be legally able to allow British visitors to use the e-gates, but nowhere does it say that they will have to do so. If they want to be awkward they can continue to prevent them from using these gates. Just as happens NOW. Even Labour's Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, who led negotiations with the EU, told BBC Radio 4’s World at One that “there is no legal barrier for the use of e-gates by UK citizens across member states, and it is about individual member states.” So the reality is that NOTHING is going to change any time soon!

And did you also notice that it says that British passport holders will be able to use EU e-gates “after the introduction of the European Union Entry/Exit System”. Yes, AFTER the new border scheme for registering visitors from outside the EU arriving in the bloc begins operating – expected to be in October.

The EU know how keen Starmer is to get this emblematic issue over the line, so are using access to E-gates as leverage in the talks on youth mobility. Catherine Barnard, a professor of European law at Cambridge University says the agreement between the UK and the EU only mentions the "potential use of e-gates where appropriate”. Her conclusion? “It's up to the member states to work out when they will introduce this - so don't hold your breath."

This notion that allowing UK travellers to use the e-gates is a huge 'concession' by the EU that we have to 'pay for' in some way is as grotesque an example of EU pettiness, racism, meanness and obnoxiousness as you could come up with. Just think about it: allowing visitors (from whatever country, not just the UK) to use the e-gates costs the EU NOTHING. It also proves just what a mean, nasty, petulant organisation the EU is. Why make life as difficult for visitors – instead of as easy - as possible? Is this how you greet visitors to your home? The UK, remember, continued, even after Brexit, to allow EU visitors to use our e-gates. Why didn't the EU reciprocate? Because, as I've always said, they are BRITAIN-HATING RACISTS. This, of course, is precisely why we had to leave.

Migrant returns deal. There is NO mention of a UK-EU migrant returns deal, or even the promise to discuss one in the future. It seems this was not even part of these talks. So no, there is ZERO chance of Starmer getting agreement to send all – or indeed any – of the illegal migrants invading Britain across the Channel back to France, which is the one thing the public would expect from a deal with the EU.

Youth mobility (covering activities, such as work, studies, au-pairing, volunteering, or simply travelling). The EU very much wants a youth mobility scheme so it can export its unemployed young people to Britain. Many people innocently imagine that a youth mobility deal would simply mean some sexy Swedish au-pairs, or frolicking French waitresses, coming here. The sad truth is that many of those that will come will actually be third-world invaders who got residency or asylum in an EU country but really want to come here. In Germany, for instance, people can get citizenship after just three years. And the scheme will be open to those up to the age of 30, so many will have families. Let's wait and see what is agreed, but I'm not too optimistic!

European Union Erasmus+ programme. There will be discussions on this student scheme, to allow EU students to come to British universities. Again, the EU is very keen on this, as our universities are so much better than theirs. This is not just some jingoistic boast, it's a fact: independent assessments say that of the world's top 10 universities, for instance, FOUR are British (Imperial, Oxford, Cambridge, UCL) and NONE in the EU.

Touring artists. Some British musicians – especially the perpetual whinger Elton John – have complained about the EU making it difficult for them to tour EU countries. Instead of complaining to the British government about this they should have protested to the EU, as they are the ones that have created the problems! But the EU is refusing to offer any concessions on this, it seems.

Mutual recognition of conformity assessment. What Starmer isn't telling you is that he asked Brussels for a “mutual recognition of conformity assessment” agreement, which would have allowed products certified in Britain to be accepted in the EU without unnecessary and costly duplicate testing. Instead of insisting that the UK's and EU's rules are identical we would have agreed to have different rules but accept that these are equally good. But guess what? Brussels rejected this out of hand. Why? Because this would have benefited the UK. Independent studies have estimated that a conformity assessment deal could deliver an average boost of around 10% to UK exports, with sectors such as industrial machinery and electronics seeing increases of close to 30%.

Yes, the EU’s reluctance to sign such a deal with the UK is PROOF of their ANTI-BRITISH HATRED AND RACISM. Because the truth is it already has these agreements with seven other countries: Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the USA, Israel and Switzerland. As the Financial Times reports: “John Springford, of the Centre for European Reform think-tank, said the decision was a question of “pure politics” rather than legal barriers, and that the potential benefits for both sides were significant. “It’s strange that the EU is willing to allow the US to judge the conformity of goods to EU standards, but not the UK, despite its continued alignment with EU rules in the goods sector,” he said.”

Gibraltar. A deal is currently being negotiated. Given Starmer's record when it comes to dealing with the EU, and the precedent he set with his surrender of the Chagos islands, one shudders to think what is coming here!

Recognition of professional qualifications. There is NO recognition by the EU of British professional qualifications. This would have benefited professionals like lawyers, architects, etc. Everyone knows that British exports of services are a major part of our economy, so getting the EU to accept our qualifications would have boosted this sector. Instead, we got NOTHING – except an agreement to TALK about this. Wow, great …

EU financial passports. The EU passporting system for banks and other financial services companies enables firms that are authorised in any EU or EEA state to trade freely in any other. When we left the EU they immediately tried to destroy the City by removing these passports from British financial institutions. The City thrived nevertheless, but a return of financial passports would be a GOOD THING. And that's precisely why the EU have refused. They did not even agree to talk about them. Yes, the EU really do HATE us. Always remember that!

So there you have it: the BEST analysis of this deal you will find anywhere. This is why you should SUBSCRIBE – and remember, it is FREE!

The only note of optimism that I can think of is the old adage: 'No government can bind its successor'. In other words, after the next election (in 2029) the next government can tell the EU to get stuffed – this agreement is no longer agreed. But will they do so? I certainly don't trust the treacherous Tories, that's for sure! But what about if Reform win the general election? I suppose that's our only hope, but let's see what promises Nigel Farage is willing to make. I have to say he seems to have had very little to say so far, and all I've heard him talk about is the fishing element of the deal - although in fairness it could just be that the media have been focusing on Starmer and Badenoch and have frozen him out. Let's see what happens over the next few days and weeks!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends. Spread the word!!

Thank you :-)