Response from London
Mr Starmer, did you sell the fish?
The question sounded like a siren in the morning silence.
It was just before 8 when the door of the Black Prime Minister Audi opened in front of the Lancaster House.
The reporter, with a look nailed to the, threw the phrase that would spread the day.
And the expression of the British Prime Minister – almost a year in Downing Street – spoke for itself: it was now clear that the political thermometer would go up short, just minutes before the official reception of the European Commission President and the President of the European Council
EU Agreement – Vassiliou: Did I open political betrayal?
The cause of the upheaval,: a compromise that they consider smart opening and political betrayal.
The government offered to the European Union and its fishing access to British waters by 2038, ensuring that British agricultural products are easier to enter into the single European market.
The 1st session after Brexit
The day marked the first summit in London between the United Kingdom and the European Union for almost a decade after the Brexit referendum – and the agreement was promoted by government circles as a “new chapter” in the relations between the two sides.
Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, however, did not cheer on his words: “The United Kingdom should accept EU law on a series of measures, from food standards to emissions trade. We have to accept any changes that the EU decides on these laws. “
Boris Johnson: Looming of British warmths
The once powerful leader of the conservatives spoke of “plundering” the British seas, continuing: “Starmer promised the elections that he would not retreat to Brexit. He has violated this promise as he violated his promise of taxation. This agreement should not be signed, it should not be validated and should never come into force and, if so, the next conservative government should withdraw it immediately. “
Starmer promises
For his part, Starmer counterattacks with the promise that the reduction of bureaucracy will lead to “lower food prices and more money in people’s pockets. It will boost British exporters because, once again after a long absence, we can sell excellent British burgers, shellfish and other EU products. “
However, the reactions were not limited to Johnson. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the Prime Minister of “leading the country back”, while Richard Tasis of Reform UK described the deal as “completely unacceptable”.
At the same time, in Westminster, some workers, mainly from the hard core of the government bloc, defended the agreement as “absolutely reasonable” and “beneficial” to the United Kingdom.
They spoke of “excessive” and “extreme” reactions from Brexit right -wing supporters who prefer a secluded Britain -Frarch, closed to Europe.
An attitude, as white voices point out from Whitehall, which has no place in the reality of the modern international economy.
The government, at least for the time being, appears united.
The agreement, they say, responds to the undisputed fact that the EU remains the country’s largest trading partner.
With British exports decreased by 21% and imports 7% after Brexit, the new agreement offers hope: it reinstates product export, reinforcing key productive sectors.
At the same time, the conjunction of pollutant trading systems is considered to boost energy safety and protect businesses from the burden of European carbon tax, which would otherwise cost £ 800 million per year.
The overall economic benefit? About £ 9 billion by 2040, almost twice as much money that is expected to bring a recent UK agreement with India.
However, the details of the commitments made by the two sides remain both blurry and the stormy waters of the North Sea – in which European fishing is expected to re -access.
Supreme officials acknowledge that key points of the agreement may take months – perhaps up to one year – to be completely finalized.
Northern Ireland’s first minister, Michelle O’Neill, described the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, however, while keeping reservations about the details, noting that “the devil is hiding in the details”.
Negotiations that, over time, may pave the way for wider cooperation, from the possible return of Erasmus opportunities for British students, to a new era of joint police actions in the fight against drug trafficking.
For Downing Street, the new agreement represents a “pragmatic approach” that seeks to leave behind the ghosts of the referendum.
For its critics, it is nothing more than an elegantly dressed folding.
Nine years after the Brexit referendum, the only real question is not whether Britain wants complete independence from Brussels – but how much it is willing to pay for it.
