By The BlackBeltBarrister
(This article is based on my YouTube video – watch it here for the full breakdown.)
Brace yourselves — it appears Keir Starmer has done another deal with the EU. And as I’ve come to say often, when Starmer negotiates, Britain loses. But this time, he may be hoping you’re not paying attention. Even the BBC rather tellingly headlined: “Starmer banks on public being over Brexit.”
Well, are you? Are you truly ready to go back to EU oversight? To silently surrender parts of what many saw as hard-won sovereignty?
If not — and if you’re someone who still values transparency and legal clarity in our political dealings — then allow me to walk you through this quietly evolving situation.
The Deal in a Nutshell: Fishing, Farming, and “Dynamic Alignment”
Let’s begin by breaking down what’s reportedly on the table in this post-Brexit “collaborative” arrangement. There are a few major themes:
Fishing rights
Farming regulations
Customs and border checks
Dynamic alignment of food and health standards
Rejoining the Erasmus student exchange program
Security and migration cooperation
On the surface, these may sound like technocratic tweaks — minor adjustments to smooth relations. But beneath that surface lies a legal and political shift with serious implications.
Fishing: The Historic Quota Fight Resurfaces
Fishing has long been one of the more emotional and symbolic elements of Brexit. Many fishers felt they were getting the short end of the deal back in the 1970s under the European Economic Community, and Brexit was, in part, supposed to correct that.
Yet under this new agreement, Starmer has reportedly agreed to maintain the current status quo of EU access to UK waters until 2038. That’s a full 12 years — three times longer than what the government had originally proposed (just four years).
This isn’t merely a symbolic concession. It has real economic consequences for fishing communities in places like Grimsby, Hull, and Plymouth — not to mention Scotland. These are industries and communities that rely on their waters for their livelihoods and believed Brexit would bring a return of control.
Instead, they may now feel — with some justification — that control is being quietly handed back.
Farming and Border Checks: The Good, the Bad, and the Alignment
In exchange, the UK appears to have secured a loosening of EU border checks on animal and plant shipments. That means more British farmers can export to the EU with fewer restrictions — good news, certainly, for businesses that have struggled since Brexit.
But there’s a catch, and it’s a big one: dynamic alignment.
This means the UK commits not just to match current EU standards for food, safety, and plant health — but also to automatically adopt future EU regulations, without a seat at the table. No vote, no say. Just acceptance.
From a legal perspective, this creates what I’d call regulatory subservience. The UK becomes a rule-taker, not a rule-maker. That wasn’t what Brexit voters signed up for — regardless of whether one voted remain or leave.
Erasmus and Migration: A Welcome Return or a Costly Commitment?
Another headline-grabbing aspect is the UK’s potential return to the Erasmus Student Exchange Programme. This could certainly open up educational and career opportunities for UK students across Europe — a move that will appeal to many, especially younger voters.
However, there’s little detail (yet) about funding caps, student limits, or the UK’s financial obligations under the scheme. It’s worth remembering that Erasmus was a costly programme for the UK before Brexit, and no one yet knows whether this return will come with fiscal strings attached.
Then there’s immigration and border cooperation — including reports of talks with EU countries about creating “return hubs” for failed asylum seekers, a kind of Rwanda-lite policy. This, too, represents a shift from previous Labour positions, which heavily criticised similar Conservative proposals.
So — is this a strategic pivot, or simply hypocrisy? I’ll leave that to you to decide.
Dynamic Alignment: A Legal Trojan Horse?
Let’s return to this idea of dynamic alignment, because it’s legally significant.
Under such an agreement, the UK would not only mirror existing EU laws on food and health safety — it would also be required to automatically implement future changes, regardless of whether they suit our national interests or not.
From a legal standpoint, this hands an immense amount of regulatory authority to a foreign body — without any parliamentary oversight or public consultation. It’s essentially a blank cheque to Brussels.
This goes beyond mere trade facilitation. It risks undermining legal sovereignty, which was one of the central pillars of the Brexit campaign.
So while some might argue it smooths relations and benefits businesses, others will understandably see it as quietly surrendering hard-won control.
Independent Schools and VAT: A Separate But Telling Issue
This brings us to another policy shift with serious legal and economic consequences: VAT on private school fees.
Labour’s policy to impose VAT on independent education has already led to the largest drop in pupil numbers since 2012 — over 13,000 fewer students in just 12 months, according to the Independent Schools Council.
And let’s be clear — this was rolled out with little warning and no phase-in period, despite other tax policies being staggered over months or years.
Labour claimed the move would generate funding to recruit 6,500 new teachers. Yet many schools are now reporting staff layoffs, especially in maths and STEM subjects. Some schools simply cannot afford the higher staffing and tax costs.
If the policy goal was to redistribute education funding, it may already be failing its own criteria.
And if you’re thinking of voicing concerns? Don’t expect a warm reception. According to reports by the Free Speech Union, critical comments left on Labour MP Bridget Phillipson’s social media posts have been systematically deleted — leaving parents and educators silenced.
It all adds up to a worrying pattern: top-down decisions, minimal debate, and suppressed dissent.
Legal Lessons and Media Bias
As a barrister, I’m trained to look at both sides of every argument, which is precisely why I’ve long supported the use of tools like Ground News. The media landscape today often presents only one side of a story — and sometimes deliberately spins the narrative to shape opinion.
Take immigration: left-leaning outlets often frame crackdowns as racist or unethical, while right-leaning ones portray them as necessary acts of national defence. Both may have a point — but unless you see both, you’re only getting half the truth.
That’s why I advocate for balanced legal analysis, especially when dealing with complex issues like international treaties, trade arrangements, and sovereignty.
Final Thoughts: Betrayal or Strategy?
Some may call this new EU deal a pragmatic step forward. Others — especially those in the fishing and farming industries — may see it as a betrayal.
As for me? I voted remain. But I’ve always said: Brexit could have been done well. What we’re seeing now is an erosion of Brexit via backdoor negotiations and media silence.
And if Starmer really believes the public is “over Brexit,” I would humbly suggest that he puts it to the vote again. Let the people decide whether they truly want to return to rule-taking from Brussels.
Until then, we must remain vigilant — and well-informed.
⚖️ Watch the Full Video
For a deeper legal breakdown and all supporting sources, watch my full analysis on YouTube here:
If you found this helpful, share it, comment below, and subscribe to my channel. Transparency and balance matter — especially in the law.
#BrexitBetrayal #DynamicAlignment #BlackBeltBarrister