Harry Curtis is Hertfordshire Area Chair and Eastern Region Coordinator for the Young Conservatives.
In 2016, this nation voted to once again stand on its own two feet. They voted to choose where they send their money. Sadly, Sir Keir Starmer has swept that all away.
First, the Prime Minister is set to announce a Youth Mobility Scheme designed for 18-30-year-olds, allowing them to live and work in the UK for three years without requiring a visa. However, it’s essential to consider that this move may impact the job prospects of young British graduates.
Graduate schemes are becoming increasingly competitive, with around 140 graduates applying for each job advertisement. By opening the doors to European graduates, we could see our job market becoming even more competitive, while unemployment is rising. Some Labour MPs are expressing their concerns about this agreement, as it might lead to an imbalance in the number of British students heading to Europe and Europeans coming to the UK.
(On a worrying note, the EU will not be funding these opportunities, unlike our Turing scheme, which supports our students abroad – a reminder that these expenses will ultimately come from our taxes.)
This means that British universities might prioritise international students even more than they do now. First, there’s the rise in UK tuition fees; then your opportunities for graduate jobs, university placements, and internships could be handed over to European students.
This could be a wonderful chance for Kemi Badenoch to refresh the Conservative Party’s image, stand against this idea, promise to eliminate it when in power, and show that she supports young Brits. Even Sadiq Khan has pointed out that this agreement could be harmful to British jobs.
Next, farming. This agreement seems to overlook our farmers and limit our independence in the energy sector. To start, we must comply with EU laws that affect every aspect of agriculture; our food will need to meet EU standards, and we’ll gain access to the EU single market for agricultural products.
While some may be celebrating this decision, we should ask ourselves at what cost? The EU is a major player in the agricultural world, and this deal suggests our British farmers may struggle to compete against an influx of EU goods. Coupled with the challenging taxes from the treasury on farmers, this new agreement could jeopardise the future of our agricultural sector.
Starmer has presented some significant challenges for the fishing industry, as EU fishermen will have access to our waters for the next twelve years. Once a proud exporter of coal and fish, surrounded by our beautiful sea and rich resources, our country now finds itself as a net importer. This deal raises serious concerns for our fishing industry, emphasising the sacrifices made for a vision of a European socialist utopia where we produce little and own even less.
Furthermore, Starmer has quietly reintroduced us to the EU single market for energy, which is contributing to carbon tariffs and adding to the challenges we face with the Net Zero initiative. While energy prices here are already quite high, it’s important to remember that they are 50 per cent higher in the EU.
Meanwhile, the cost we’ve incurred for mere words on defence feels quite heavy, especially when we think about the UK potentially engaging in just a few more meetings a year.
Why did we agree to this for the sake of a few more imports beneficial to our food and drink sector, which barely scratches the surface of our annual trade at two or three per cent? It’s quite hard to comprehend, particularly with active conflicts on European soil and the unsettling advance of Russia into Europe. Is the best that Starmer and Von Der Leyen can offer: simply more meetings?
The current approach, as seen in Starmer’s leadership, seems to diminish our standing on the global stage. We seem to be a far cry from the pro-British governance we once experienced under Boris, who boldly sent our military to France to secure our vaccines. Our government’s stance appears lacking, and this agreement really highlights that.
Immigration and its complexities are legitimate concerns that deserve the attention of the Government. Starmer’s announcement touched lightly on immigration issues, and it makes one wonder how many others might follow the Albanian Prime Minister’s example and ignore Britain if we do not take immigration seriously.
Realistically, it seems like we have little chance of persuading France to curb small boat crossings, as they don’t appear to care about our borders remotely. It’s puzzling why we continue to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in encouraging action against illegal migration when it doesn’t seem to yield results.
To truly tackle the issue of illegal migration, we may need to consider withdrawing from the ECHR and examine Italy’s approach, which has developed processing centres in key countries of origin. This way, if individuals still decide to enter illegally, we could facilitate their deportation – it’s a straightforward concept.
Ultimately, Rishi Sunak was right; everything he predicted about Labour’s first year in government has come to fruition. Taxes are higher, energy prices are elevated, and we have been reluctantly pulled back into the European Union. We have shifted from being rule-makers to rule-takers.
