Some good news has emerged from Andy Burnham’s recent dealings with the European Union, it would seem: British energy companies will be allowed to trade freely in the continent’s electricity market. In return, British taxpayers will fund infrastructure projects in poorer parts of the EU.

But hang on, what’s this “in return” business? A free trade agreement is supposed to be its own reward: you get to trade freely with me, I get to trade freely with you. But according to the text of a draft agreement seen by the Telegraph, the British Government has conceded that its “participation in parts of the EU’s internal market requires an appropriate level of financial contribution towards reducing economic and social disparities between the regions of the EU”.

Really? When Canada trades with the US, do Canadian taxpayers have to build bridges in Alabama or water mains in West Virginia? Do China’s trade partners have to fork out for highways in Shenzhen? What makes this agreement all the more galling is that many of Britain’s leading energy businesses are subsidiaries of EU companies. E.ON UK is owned by the Germans, EDF Energy by the French and ScottishPower by the Spanish. So we’ve already opened up our energy sector to continental control, and in return we get some of the most expensive power on the planet. Now, the UK has to bribe the EU so that EU-owned businesses can trade on equal terms in the bloc. It’s a rotten deal.

It’s not just one sector, either. Look at the impending agreement on access to university education. It has been reported that the British Government is ready to offer EU students a cut-price deal on tuition. They could pay the same price as British students, not the much higher international rate. This would either knock a massive hole in the finances of the UK’s higher education sector or require British taxpayers to make up the difference.

But if UK students get easier access to EU universities, wouldn’t that be worth it? Well, four of the world’s top 20 universities are British compared to zero for the EU. In the top 50, the figures are seven versus three. So there’s no doubt as to who’s receiving the greater benefit here — especially as Britain’s universities teach in English and supply an open market for global talent.

Another example of capitulation is the latest agreement to lower trade barriers on UK farm imports and exports. That seems welcome, but inevitably there’s a catch — British alignment with EU regulation. And never mind that the UK, since Brexit, has been much less obstructive to EU goods than the other way round. The asymmetries are infuriating.

Isn’t that the way of the world, though, the big trade blocs using their clout to bilk their smaller neighbors? Perhaps we should have stayed in the club. Except that full or partial membership gives Brussels more ways to shake Britain down: on annual contributions to the bloc’s budget, EU-wide taxes, the underwriting of borrowing by the European Commission, loss of border control and endless regulatory imposition.

Despite the hype, there’s every chance that Burnham will balk at rejoining the EU — or even a halfway house like the single market. Nevertheless, he’s desperate that the EU-UK summit later in the month produces feel-good Euro-vibes for domestic consumption. In the process, he’s re-exposing the UK to Brussels exploitation. It may be time for Kemi Badenoch to re-use that old line: “when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.”

---

Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

---