Sir Keir Starmer has drawn up plans under which the UK will ramp up its net zero targets and cede control over its energy policy as part of closer alignment with Brussels.
A memorandum, published by the Cabinet Office earlier this month, spells out the price that the UK is willing to pay to reset relations with Europe.
This includes a “dynamic alignment” of British law with EU rules on “the promotion of renewable energy”, which would require the UK to decarbonise – not just electricity, but also heating and transport rapidly.
In practice this could see net zero targets doubled, potentially leading to draconian measures such as reducing meat consumption and restrictions on flying, wood fires and driving.
Didn’t we actually have a vote of, you know, the people on this?
Since when had the Blob and the Politicians they “manage” any intention of letting the actual Will of the People happen?
This, or something similar, was written on the wall as soon as they got a majority..
They can double down all they like, the net zero enthusiasts, but it won’t work because we are now realising even amongst the believers that it can’t go on.
“In practice this could see net zero targets doubled, potentially leading to draconian measures such as reducing meat consumption and restrictions on flying, wood fires and driving.”
I fully approve of Labour doing this because the backlash outside of the metropolitan areas will be huge. This will go down well in London, Bristol, Oxford, Cambridge and go down like a cold bucket of sick in places like Aldershot, Banbury and Bolsover.
Let Labour sign whatever needs signing, then Farage can get out there with “they’re coming for your cars” and he’ll be Prime Minister for certain. The media and politicians (both London-centric) really don’t get how much people outside depend on cars.
Quite. The further Left the Establishment go, the easier it is to convince the public to vote for a radical realignment rightwards.
Frankly, I’d advocate the mass use of firing squads.
Besides, it’d terrify the idiots in Oz who also want this drivel.
Yep, the sooner the better. Although, I’d rather it was somewhere else that went to the wall first.
Here we go again with international commitments and international law. The problem is they (Labour in particular but EUphiles in general) seem to have forgotten that their attempt to get Brexit overturned Gina Miller won a case in the Supreme Court that declare parliament is sovereign.
So, as long as Reform and the Tories declare now and in their manifestos that they will repeal any law this government passes on EU alignment they can repeal it under cover of the Parliament Acts.
While that may be true (it’s certainly my understanding), it ignores the poison pill in the form of retribution measures baked into the agreement.
Didn’t we used to have a word for those who knowingly act against the interests of their country?
There is always the phrase: “You can fuck off with your demands, pal.” What could the EU actually do? Send Macron’s army to occupy us?
What could the EU actually do?
A lot of nasty things, eg disrupting trade and perhaps electricity supply, sanctions on the City…
The problem is that trade is a two-way street. Stopping the British from getting hold of lemons fucks up the lemon farmer in Spain.
Do you think the lemon farmers and the Camembert producers care if we’re more aligned with the EU or not? Or do they want to sell more lemons and cheese to us? Are they going to drive tractors to their parliaments because we didn’t accept net zero, or that they have too much product sitting around?
All of this is just Starmer’s wish. Lots of boomer socialist types fetishize the EU. They’re stuck in the past, when trade ended at Berlin, and Asia and South America barely traded at all.
The problem is that trade is a two-way street. Stopping the British from getting hold of lemons fucks up the lemon farmer in Spain.
The EU can susidise its fruit growers and cheese producers. Meanwhile, empty supermarket shelves and rapidly rising food prices here would soon lead to dissatisfaction and unrest. The pro-EU establishment + 50% of the electorate would repeatedly say that all this could be avoided by paying up or sticking with net zero. I doubt my fellow Brits have the stomach for such a fight, and so I fear the government would cave in…
Theo…. Are you sure you’re not a 5th Columnist Remoaner?
You’re assuming the unrest Empty Supermarket Shelves give would Magically raise support for More EU?
With the EU, and the politicians responsible for the Conditions, being *cause* of those empty shelves?
Have you lately talked to any real human beings?
Especially the ones outside Academia or BlueSky?
Because… wellll… The way you picture the electorate swing there…
Defintely Elyan Sage-ish…
Doubly so because *if* Farage gets a Majority, and *does* rip up stuff…
All he has to point to is the Poison Pill, and go … “there’s the true enemy”.
And prepare gibbets for the Clowns…..
You’re assuming the unrest Empty Supermarket Shelves give would Magically raise support for More EU?
No, I am saying that over 50% of the electorate already wants to rejoin the EU. And the chorus from the BBC and the MSM would be, ‘This is not a fight worth having – stick with our European partners and net zero’. So a Farage government could find itself on a very sticky wicket…
If you disagree, articulate a cogent argument rather than ad hominem bluster.
That’s an ….interesting …..take on current sentiments….
Now for the one million dollar question…..
“Care to back that up with numbers?”
Mr Google is your friend…
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51484-how-do-britons-feel-about-brexit-five-years-on
As of mid-2025, various polls indicated that a majority of Britons—approximately 53% to 59%—would vote to rejoin the European Union if a new referendum were held…
That polling shows what idiots so many voters are.
Brexit went great. We left the EU. That’s all that Brexit was. Leave the EU, grandfather in EU law, remove the shackles.
Governments subsequently failed to do Phase 2, which was taking the EU laws off our backs.
There was an interesting one about wine, which is that because of the wording of the law, the EU became a “third country” to the UK and producers had to start filling out VI-1 forms. Which importers from the EU then started wining about. Same forms that Chile and South Africa had to do for years. So the government dropped it. For everyone. Turns out, funnily enough that Chile and South Africa became magically safe overnight.
https://deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2021/12/17/vi-1-certificates-removed-from-all-imports-of-wine-to-gb-by-january-1st/
If the EU could starve us into submission to do anything they want, why haven’t they done it already?
And if you’ll submit to this, “stick with our European partners and net zero” what’s your line where it is a fight worth having?
Also, I don’t believe that 50% of the electorate wants to re-join. They’re being polled in a vacuum, when there is no offer of a re-join on the table. People will say all sorts of things without a cost. The polling about the EU before the referendum showed we wanted to stay in. On the day, that wasn’t the result. Personally, I thought hard about the risks, the talk of empty supermarket shelves. On balance I thought we should leave. Now, I’d have no hesitation but to stay out as the remoaners showed there was no threat.
Also, I don’t believe that 50% of the electorate wants to re-join. They’re being polled in a vacuum…
But polling is the only data we’ve got. And polling data is more reliable than your feelz….Do you believe the polling numbers for Reform (also taken in a vacuum)? If so, are you believing only the polls you want to believe?
I voted leave; and I’d vote leave again. I am not advocating “stick with our European partners and net zero”. Rather, I am expressing scepticism that a Farage government – elected on <40% of the vote? – would have enough public support to refuse to pay a net zero exit penalty, if the EU were to cut up rough with sanctions, etc.
“But polling is the only data we’ve got. And polling data is more reliable than your feelz….Do you believe the polling numbers for Reform (also taken in a vacuum)? If so, are you believing only the polls you want to believe?”
People are debating alternatives to Labour actively. We can also see large Reform gains in various local elections and by-elections. I’m not too bothered about the polls for the national election as it’s so far away.
“Rather, I am expressing scepticism that a Farage government – elected on <40% of the vote? – would have enough public support to refuse to pay a net zero exit penalty, if the EU were to cut up rough with sanctions, etc.”
Starmer has signed us up for a load of EU bollocks on less than 35% of the vote.
Over 50% may say they’re in favour of rejoining but that’s before they are forced to think about it in a real campaign.
We aren’t going back in on the terms we left so we should treat that number as propaganda.
No-one much is voting for the Rejoin EU party. 1.1% in the London mayoral elections, one of the strongholds of Remain. 1% in the City of Chester by-election. 0.3% in Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election.
I don’t think anyone really cares that much about going back in.
Most of which they’ve already done (certainly in practice, sometimes in law), and the world didn’t come to an end. The EU shot its bolt after Brexit; we don’t need to fear them any more.
They don’t like us. If they want a deal it might be good for them but they won’t care if it’s good for us. It never has been before.
No Good Turn Goes Unpunished. We whupped the Krauts and rescued the French. Twice. They hate us for it.
53% say they want to rejoin – but they want to rejoin what we had before, WHICH ISN’T ON OFFER. We would be JOINING a single currency, a single central bank, a single taxation system, a single economic policy.
Yes, the ultra insane actually *do* want this, but I’d say that 90% of that 53% of rejoiners aspire to have “go back to 2015”.
…the poison pill in the form of retribution measures baked into the agreement.
Exactly. Potentially vast fines – eg £100 bns? – for exiting the agreement. If Farage refuses to pay, the EU would put the screws on…disrupting trade or electricity supply…
And who is going to enforce any fines?
The answer we should give is “μολὼν λαβέ”, and at the same time remind the frog fishermen of who owns the waters they want to fish in.
The EU would try to ‘enforce’ the fines/exit penalties by sanctions and tariffs for starters…
And the UK doesn’t have enough fishery or naval vessels to expel French fishermen from its waters…
So, Fenschies punishing Frenchies for having the audacity to want to buy UK produce. So what? If they want to shoot themselves in retaliation for our actions, go ahead.
Which only doubles to serve to prove *why* you don’t want to be beholden to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, and *how far* the Rot has progressed….
And really…. disrupt trade? With which army? Red Tape and Tarriffs can be dealt with, once you hang the worst of your own blob of tut-tutting pencilpushers from London Bridge, and the crenellations of Westminster..
Disrupt electricity… How? The EU can’t… not without something close to an act of war…
And it’s not as if the US won’t happily sell LNG to the UK… Possibly at friendly rates *because* the right shins are being kicked from their point of view..
In case you hadn’t noticed, the UK is a sovereign nation..
Should Parliament decide a firm “Fuck Off!” is in order, and rip up “Deals” , it’s in the UK’s full right to do so.
And it probably should… If only to pull the rug on the Lawyers by taking away the Toys and Ammo they use for their pre-planned Lawfare should anyone try to go against the Will of the Blob.
Disrupting EU-UK trade would be easy for the EU. Slowing down import/export traffic would soon lead to shortages of fresh produce and other items in supermarkets. Sourcing alternatives would be expensive, leading to rapid price increases for consumers. Then the EU could introduce specific sanctions, eg on the City.
Hanging the blob? Er…capital punishment is not legal in the UK, even for treason. But do enjoy your fantasies…
Rilly? I suggest you wander down to your local supermarket and take a look at the produce on the shelves. Half of it is from central and southern America, we don’t *have* to buy tomatoes from NL, and the US would be delighted to sell us beef and chicken (although it could be ‘chlorinated’ so you might need to hide under your bed).
The UK imports roughly 84% of its fruit, with Spain as the largest supplier (19%), followed by significant imports from the Netherlands, South Africa (mainly citrus, in winter), Peru (mainly grapes, in winter), and Morocco. France is our major supplier of apples and pears. 70%+ of UK beef imports come from Ireland; and c.43% of our chicken imports from the Netherlands. Re-orientating such sourcing would be costly (to consumers) and time-consuming.
When I last looked I was surprised at how much of our fruit & veg import comes from outside the EU. Morocco, Algeria, Egypt. South America. Blackberries from Peru, FFS. And we’ve done a deal with Oz for meat so the Irish can fuck off. Let them trade with that vast EU market instead. Should suit them a treat.
That’s a game of bluff. UK simply has to reciprocate with massive trade tariffs & half the EU nations would be screaming for a backdown. German auto industry has enough problems now.
The EU would be highly selective in its targets; and it would subsidise its losers. UK trade tariffs on EU products would hurt the UK consumer – 50-55% of whom already favour rejoining the EU – who would be seeing shortages in supermarkets and rapid food price rises. I fear the Brits wouldn’t have the stomach for a fight…
Theo, are you English? You may have seriously underestimated the ability of the English to fuck things up if they feel they are being bullied, which is exactly what the EU are trying to do to us.
These people are not and never have been our ‘friends’, they are purely in it to serve their own purposes and fuck everyone else.
Yes, I am English to the core; but with 50-55% of the UK electorate in favour of rejoining the EU, I can’t see my fellow Brits being up for a fight over a penalty charge, if the EU cuts up rough.
About as english as the “Dutch” who are now entering Ramadan.
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on….
40-ish years of Hexperience with “the english” puts you in a *very* specific branch of English….
The simple fact that you need to Explain you’re actually “english”…
one of the Flavours, maybe….
But you’re *just* shy of switching Church for a Prayer Mat. If circumstances dictate…
Let’s be fair , Theo….
in ’14 -18 you would have survived… and would have been collecting white feathers….
More ad hominem bluster…
Not to the core, no. You’re frit.
Why TF should we shoot ourselves in the face in retaliation to the Frenchies shooting themselves in the face? “Keep back or the nigger gets it!” only works with morons.
Two more singing the battle cry of the Oxford Graduate Dictatorship.
“Surrender is our only option, chaps!”
This *is* Theo….
He’s insisting we fight according to the Marquis of Fantailler…
While the other side blatantly cheats…
Because it’s “What Gentlemen Would Do”….
I know you and I are more of the Vimes/Willikins attitude, but he will *never* understand…
Until he’s bleeding out in a back alley, and even then he’d probably be crying “Unfair!!”.
You simply cannot have a government that passes a law that can’t be undone by the next. It’s arguably immoral for a government to agree to anything beyond the end of their term. That’s the contract with the people. But the mechanism of parliamentary sovereignty solves it.
Farage should make hay with this. Apart from how much most of us like meat and cars, we The People, told you, The Politicians what we wanted. Which was to leave the EU. There are places where it makes sense for us to share common standards, but this is about getting us back in by stealth. Announce a “Smashing Up Starmer’s EU Agreement Act” to be passed on day 1.
The Conservative Party won’t do it because too many of their senior people are EUphiles. Even if Kemi is who she says she is, the defections have only made the party even wetter than it already was. Who would Mrs Thatch describe as “one of us”? Esther McVey? Priti Patel? David Davis?
You simply cannot have a government that passes a law that can’t be undone by the next.
True; but a government can pass laws with major impediments and expensive penalties that discourage – and, in effect, prevent – repeal…And Parliamentary sovereignty doesn’t solve that.
Treason Act 1848….
Or are you saying deliberately agreeing to clearly insane conditions detrimental to the UK which are not done at gunpoint after losing a war, but purely meant to derail any attempts at repealing them is not Treason?
The Treason Act 1842 (not 1848) is not relevant here: it largely concerns acts intended to injure or alarm the monarch, eg the pointing of firearms. Similarly, the Treason Acts of 1351, 1702 and 1708 would not apply to the passing of an Act of Parliament, duly approved by the sovereign, with significant exit penalties.
You’re right, we should just give in.
You’re assuming Jug-Ears is stupid enough to sign off on those conditions….
He *can* …. oh wait… that’d require him to have an actual spine, eh?
Force Parliament to bypass him…
And the Treason Act *does* apply…
“Aiding and abetting a hostile foreign nation” *is* equivalent to “Hostility against the Crown”.
And in case you haven’t noticed… The EU, as an entity, *is* a hostile foreign nation bent on diminishing or abolishing the sovereignty of the Crown.
*Any* sovereignty , if they can help it. Not just the UK..
All for the Glory of a Unified Europe. It’s not as if it’s keeping it a deep dark secret…
So yes… Plenty to work with in that department.
*IF* , and that’s a big *IF*…. Jug-Ears actually has a spine, or manages to find one he can borrow…
And the fun bit is…. should Cherly-boi find that spine and say “yeah…. You don’t think I’d sign off on this under those conditions?!!” it’ll cause such a political stink the current set of Clowns *won’t* get away with it.
Because the very act of Refusal would focus the attention of everyone on the Poision Pill the Clowns tried to slip in…
But yeah… That’s a what-if… I strongly feel Charlie is as detrimental to England/the UK as his namesakes were.
And *doesn’t* have the spine to buck Westminster for the actual people he’s supposed to govern and *protect*.
But we’ll see… Labour hasn’t gotten *nearly* desperate enough to even be this stupid.
And they’re still aiming to make their last run as long as possible…
Oh dear…where to start?
A constitutional monarch approving an Act of Parliament involving a penalty clause for exiting an international agreement is not “aiding and abetting a hostile foreign nation.” Because many international agreements that the UK is party to contain such clauses – eg on trade sanctions, arms embargoes, environmental treaties, the UNIDROIT Principles, the UNCITRAL rules, the 2007 Hague Convention on family maintenance…never mind the EU-UK TCA!
As for the King refusing to sign such an Act, the ensuing constitutional crisis would play straight into Starmer’s anti-monarchist hands…And the international agreement would still be implemented…
Which bit of “Charly actually aquiring a spine” did you miss?…..
And what on earth makes you assume Starmer will last another 2-3 months?
I’m just a DumbFurriner, but I can *hear* the Knives being sharpened over here….
Other than it not being a Constitutional Crisis, but a King actually Doing His Job…
Which is …. as much as you dislike it,…. telling Politicians that there’s a Limit to the shit they can pull…..
And I’d *love* Charly Waking Up….. The amount of REEEEEEEEEEE!!!! will be Glorious…
But as far as I can see the UK is too far down the Drain to do it without Blood Shed…
Because CCCUK….
Incidentally, Theo…
In three weeks we have our municipal elections over here…
In line with your general mode of thinking, my attitude of:
“I don’t care *who* you vote for, just bloody well *use* your vote”
seems to be a populist/neoliberal plot.designed to “skew the Numbers”, according to the ever-neutral press and other Opinion Makers.
We’re living in an Age where encouraging people to actually *use* their franchise is , according to some modes of “Thought”, seen as a Moral Crime…
You’re only encouraging that attitude….
Must say…Not a Fan…
Are you drunk?
Would make it a hell of a lot easier to deal with your…..logic…. but no…
Quite the contrary… out of …neccessity….
You don’t know what logic is…
Starmer’s successor, if there’s one, will be as anti-monarchical as he is…duh!
And the King could only intervene if implementing the Act was deemed unlawful by a court or his legal advisers – something that would have emerged long before the Bill became an Act and long before Royal Assent. Duh!
Fantallier… alll the way….
Grikath: Somebody on another site recently linked to analysis (unfortunately paywalled) suggesting that it’s not in the interests of anyone in Labour to ditch Starmer before the local elections in May. After that, they can blame him for the losses and ramp up the pressure on him.
The government can’t include penalties for the next. Even if it’s written into a signed agreement with the EU. The next government can just say “nope, not paying it”.
The only downside is how they might penalise us in other ways, possibly.
The government can’t include penalties for the next.
Governments can and do. Numerous of our international agreements include penalty clauses.
The only downside is how they might penalise us in other ways,
They could and would. The EU is a very nasty organisation.
And you’re scared of it.
Theo has what I call the curtain twitcher mentality. They don’t like what’s going on the street & they want someone else to do something about it. As long as it doesn’t involve them.
It’s very common. It’s how they got themselves into this shit.
I guess hay wains *are* renewable….
. . . both stay in the game and don’t make a no-compete deal (now along with Restore Britain), then we’ll have another five years of treasonous cuntery from the one third that didn’t split its vote.
Welcome to the Hotel California – you can check out but you can never leave.
Hotel California is a song about heroin addiction. Which sums up UK governments since ’45. Addiction to socialism. Because socialism gives apparently easy answers to difficult problems. The majority of the time since ’45 has been under Tory governments but since Atlee first used the needle, the only difference has been the strength of the dose. These days Starmer’s mainlining the country fentanyl cocktails.
It’s more than government. It’s the people. Very few people want less government, more dosh in the pocket, more personal choice.
Everyone’s looking for a freebie from the state, and that’s the great con. Because the big winners are the state, or a few individuals.
Quite. The country has a welfare addiction.
To reprise Little Feat
Roll another one
Just like the other one
You’ve been holding on to it
And I sure would like a hit
Or since we’re doing the ’70s, maybe Jesse Winchester sung it better:
Well, when I got home from work last night
I headed straight for my stash
‘Cause I wanted some of my private blend
Which is two parts grass to one part hash
Well, when I got to my little secret hiding place
And I checked out my little plastic bag
Well, there wasn’t a speck of that nice leaf left
And I felt my whole spirit sag
There’s nothing but twigs and seeds, twigs and seeds
And they sure don’t deliver the punch that this ole head needs
Those institutional investors who bought CO2 credits in the last 5 years will be sitting on a nice paper profit if the UK joins the EU scheme if I’ve understood right. But would there be a claim with ISDS or the European equiv if someone buys credits under an agreement to join a merged scheme for 5 years and then finds they’re worth a lot less when UK quits before that.
It’s a total mess.
Let’s not forget that Starmer is a member of the Trilateral Commission. Everything he’s done (or tried to do accords with its intentions.
https://labourheartlands.com/from-rockefeller-to-starmer-mapping-the-trilateral-network-in-the-epstein-files/ (thanks to dearieme)
Net Zero is basically done. It’s just a matter of how much damage it does before it keels over. Typically, Starmer wants to maximise that. One more reason to hate the bastard.
I understand that Starmer is definitely definitely NOT an agent of the Chinese Communist Party. But if he was, what would he be doing differently?
He’s in the Trilateral Commission. It’s not clear which of the three bits he’s actually working for.
Labour is basically Uncle Joe and his scorched earth policy. EU, mass immigration of muslim rapists, trans, dumbing down schools, fiscal incontinence, anything to make a new government handicapped.
Most of which the Tories did as well….
There’s a solid reason Farage got a foothold to begin with….
Same for *any* of the Populist movements… Vested interests got so blatant about some things even Uncle Spaz could figure it out….
The Tories stopped Pretending too early….
Why are these people so OBSESSED with subserviated the country to foreigners? I can’t hink of any other instance in history where so many people are so desperate to have other people ruling them. The general process of history is the other way agound, spilling blood to get RID of control by others.
They’re too lazy to think about and argue for their own policies. Outsourcing it to the EU means they don’t even have to defend the policy, for them it’s axiomatic that the EU is a good thing.
Axiomatic yes. But in 2016 they didn’t even try to make a positive case for remain. Only project fear. Is there anyone who can make such a case? In short, tell me what’s so good about it.
It’s money. Who’s paying Theo?
Man, it would be a terrible shame if anything bad happens to MPs personally.
I don’t think my sides could take it.
restrictions on flying, wood fires and driving.
For people who know where their MP lives, does anybody know if this restriction on fire* (!!!!) includes squirting lighter fluid through their doors at 3 am and roasting them alive?
Asking for Ukrainians, because let’s hope this NEVER happens again. But if it does, oh well.
Presumably they could still do the scout trick of rubbing things together?
No. We didn’t. The closest we came to it was voting on Brexit when the Leave campaigners generally supported the view (through frequent references to sovereignty) that anything that Parliament did was good and anything that the EU did was bad. Consequently, one can view the result as giving a free hand to Parliament (and therefore the government of the day, and therefore Keir Starmer) to do what it likes.
Nonce sense.
Seeing as Starmer wanted to cut welfare until ‘his’ MP’s told him he couldn’t (Al Beeb: “following a rebellion among Labour MPs and the likelihood the government would be defeated in the Commons”), it appears Kier and therefore the government cannot do what he likes…….
Bollocks. The good bit we voted for was that we can vote our own MPs in and out. Taxation with representation. We can’t vote EU Commission members in our out. Taxation (and regulation) without representation.
Don’t be cunt all your life, Charles. Have the occasional day off.
Where legally would a party to a treaty stand if it were to be told in advance of it being signed that should there be a change of government that the new one would not abide by the terms of the treaty? If Reform were to formally tell the EU now that they would not abide by anything that Starmer and co agree to, would that make the treaty legally invalid and unenforceable in future?
I’d have thought caveat emptor. The Supreme Court has informed the world and his wife – including the EU, if they were paying attention, which due diligence suggests they should – that Parliament is sovereign. In consequence, anyone making a treaty with the UK must be aware that they are only actually making an agreement with the present government, which of course is bound by it.
The moment that government changes – an expression that the will of the UK demos has also changed – that treaty becomes unenforceable. So the EU can fuck off with its cash demands (they’re always cash demands). Of course it can fuck us up in other ways, usually bureaucratic. But we can fuck them up, too. We can effectively strangle Ireland, and probably should. Let them build a fucking border in the North, and bear the consequences.
I agree with the sentiment but the government has the right to enter in to long term agreements with reasonable penalties if future governments change policy, which is why we need the ISDS.
What they can’t do is enter what are clearly unreasonable treaties for political reasons, which is what this appears to be. We need a lot more clarity on what we get out of it. That’s why I say Reform and Tories should make their intentions clear so the EU is forewarned if the treaty is unreasonable.
ISDS is with investors: that’s what the I stands for. It’s a guarantee that a future government won’t nick their stuff.
Treaties between political entities are very much outside its scope, and in any case it would be hard to see what assets in the UK the EU has “invested” in.