The European Union is reportedly demanding that the left-wing British government agree to a “Farage clause” in its so-called Brexit reset that would impose a financial penalty on the United Kingdom if a future government pulls out of the deal.
Brussels has been accused of attempting to undermine British democracy and Britain’s unwritten constitution after the globalist-aligned Financial Times reported that Eurocrats are seeking to include a termination penalty with a “high level” of financial restitution should a potential Farage-led government withdraw from the pending deal that would see a range of UK industries be bound by EU regulations.
A longtime opponent of Brexit, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has been attempting to “realign” the British economy with Europe, and is currently in talks to see EU standards imposed on key sectors such as farming and food production and energy. The government has argued that doing so will reduce costs for UK businesses by removing the need to fill out the reams of paperwork demanded by the bloc of foreign importers, and it besides brings Britain as close to the EU as possible without taking the politically poisonous step of actually rejoining.
Opponents, such as Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, have claimed that the move would represent a “Brexit betrayal” by outsourcing sovereignty to Brussels and ceding control to the European Court of Justice, which would be granted authority to decide in trade disputes between British businesses and partners on the continent.
The Brexit boss has further argued that aligning the British economy with the EU’s Single Market rules and with Brussels’ green agenda regulations would squander the ability of the UK to take advantage of the freedoms provided by independence from the bloc and from taking competitive advantage of emerging markets throughout the world.
Mr Farage and Tory Party leader Kemi Badenoch have both vowed to withdraw from the Labour Party-negotiated deal should either come to power after the next general election.
Describing the so-called “Farage clause” to mitigate against such a withdrawal, an unnamed EU diplomat told the FT that it was a “safety provision to provide stability and a deterrent for Farage and Co,” adding that the “EU wants an agreement long-term and not only until 2029, should a change happen at the next election.”
Responding to the report, Mr Farage said, “No Parliament may bind its successor and we will not honour any clause. If Starmer signs this, it’s a democratic outrage.”
Reform UK’s candidate for London Mayor, Laila Cunningham, said the reported demands demonstrate that Eurocrats are so “terrified of democracy” that “they actually want insurance against it!”
“Starmer’s the perfect puppet to deliver whatever the EU demands. We voted for Brexit for sovereignty, and Starmer’s giving it all back with his “Brexit reset”, without a mandate. It’s shocking that our PM just doesn’t represent Britain, he represents them,” she lamented.
Head of Policy for Reform UK, Zia Yusuf, added that “our Parliament is sovereign. Nobody can bind future governments in the UK, including and especially foreign bureaucrats. It’s time this country had a leader who negotiated for British people, not for foreign courts and foreign governments. That’s what Prime Minister Nigel Farage will do.”
Yusuf said that the real “Farage Clause” will come in the form of a Reform-controlled Downing Street demanding that France return the £800 million sent by Conservative and Labour governments to Paris in exchange for preventing illegal migration across the English Channel, which he argued has not been fulfilled by the Macron government.
The Reform policy chief said that another “Farage Clause” would be the immediate cessation of welfare payments to foreign nationals living in Britain, including EU nationals, which he said would save the British taxpayer £6.3 billion per year.
“Labour’s delighted to keep paying it, the Tories want to keep paying it. Reform will terminate these payments and put British people first,” Yusuf said.
A Labour spokesman said that it was “standard for agreements to have contingencies for termination and they would work both ways… Exit provisions are a basic staple of any international trade agreement. Pretending these routine legal contingencies constitute a democratic outrage is frankly exhausting.”