The aim is to ensure the UK follows single market rules, giving the country access to the EU’s internal market. But critics say it effectively reverses the decision to quit the EU and make Britain an independent nation again.

Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice revealed plans to reverse the move if Mr Farage becomes Prime Minister. He said: “Outrageous. Labour plots to deny MPs vote on new EU sell-out. Reform will reverse such a betrayal.”

Labour has pledged not to return the UK to the EU’s single market, but Sir Keir recently said: “I’m ambitious that we can do more in relation to the single market because I think that’s in our interest.

The EU is warning that market access will require the UK to make a financial contribution to its “cohesion policy”, designed to lift up poorer regions of member states.

The UK-EU reset legislation enabling the use of the so-called Henry VIII powers is expected to be part of the King’s Speech package set out on May 13.

Initial legislation granting the new powers to ministers will go through the usual process of scrutiny. But critics said the plan to allow the use of secondary legislation for dynamic alignment with Brussels – changing the UK’s rules to mirror those set in Brussels to make trade easier – would sideline Westminster.

A government spokesman said: “The Bill will go through Parliament in the normal way.

“Any new treaties or deals with the EU will also face parliamentary scrutiny, and Parliament will have a role in approving new EU laws required under those deals via secondary legislation.

“This will allow us to deliver a food and drink trade deal worth £5.1billion a year, backing British jobs and slashing costly red tape for our farmers, producers and businesses.”

The Government has repeatedly made clear the UK will not rejoin the single market, but Chancellor Rachel Reeves has set out that areas where the UK diverts from the Brussels rules should be the “exception, not the norm”.

The plans under the new “UK-EU reset Bill”, as it has been unofficially called within Whitehall, would give the Government the mechanism to adopt EU rules in areas where it has signed deals with Brussels.

A Whitehall source said: “We are clear Parliament will have a role for new deals and on new EU laws applying under those deals.”

There are circumstances where votes can be held on approving pieces of secondary legislation, but they do not have the same level of scrutiny as a new law.

But any blocking votes would be likely to cause issues with the EU and could spark retaliatory action by Brussels.

They also want to secure a common sanitary and phytosanitary area – which would apply to the movement of plants and food – and agree on a way to link their emissions trading systems by that time.

“Labour’s dire management of the economy has driven Starmer scurrying to Brussels to distract from his own failings.

“Labour are still fighting the referendum because they fundamentally cannot accept the democratic decision the British people made.

“We should be seizing the opportunities of Brexit, however, Starmer’s weakness on the world stage has made this near-impossible.”

Furious Nigel Farage vows to reverse Keir Starmer’s ‘outrageous’ Brexit betrayal

Nigel Farage has renewed his attack on what he describes as Keir Starmer’s “outrageous” betrayal of Brexit, promising that Reform UK would seek to reverse policies that, in his view, are bringing Britain progressively closer to the European Union.

Farage’s argument has become one of the defining themes of Reform UK’s political message. The party leader has repeatedly argued that Brexit was intended to give the UK greater control over its laws, borders, trade and national policy, and that successive governments have failed to make full use of those freedoms.

The dispute is particularly significant because Britain’s relationship with the EU has not simply been a question of whether the UK remains a member. Since Brexit, governments have faced practical questions over trade, security, energy, fishing, agriculture, research, youth mobility and regulatory cooperation.

Farage’s position is that cooperation can go too far and eventually undermine the independence that Brexit was intended to provide.

Farage’s accusation

In June 2026, marking the tenth anniversary of the referendum, Farage published an extended argument that the political establishment had failed to deliver what he regarded as the promise of Brexit.

He described the referendum as a turning point in British politics and argued that successive governments had been unwilling or unable to implement the result in the way Leave voters expected. Reform’s own account presents this as a central explanation for the collapse of the traditional party system.

Farage’s language was particularly critical of Labour.

He argued that closer relations with Brussels risked recreating some of the constraints Britain had voted to leave behind. His criticism is therefore not simply about individual agreements. It is about the principle of who ultimately makes Britain’s laws and determines its economic policy.

For Reform, sovereignty remains central to the Brexit argument.

What Starmer actually proposed

The controversy intensified in January 2026 after Starmer discussed the possibility of closer economic ties with the EU.

The Prime Minister said Britain should consider closer alignment with the European single market if doing so were judged to be in the national interest. He also discussed a possible youth mobility arrangement that would allow younger people to travel and work in European countries.

Those comments did not amount to a proposal for Britain to rejoin the EU.

Nevertheless, they were interpreted by critics as evidence that Labour wanted to move Britain closer to the European bloc.

Farage responded forcefully.

At a Reform campaign event in London, he accused the government of pursuing a “Brexit betrayal” and said his party would oppose what he described as a surrender of sovereignty, money and control over British fishing waters.

The disagreement therefore involves an important distinction.

Closer cooperation with the EU is not the same as EU membership. The political argument concerns how much cooperation is compatible with the independence created by leaving the bloc.

Fishing and agriculture

Fishing has become one of the most emotionally powerful issues in Farage’s Brexit campaign.

He has argued that leaving the EU should have produced a much greater change in Britain’s control of its territorial waters.

In his June 2026 essay, Farage criticised the government’s approach to fisheries and agriculture, claiming that British fishermen and farmers had not received the benefits that Brexit supporters had expected. He specifically criticised arrangements involving access to UK waters and regulatory alignment with the EU.

These are political arguments rather than universally accepted assessments of Brexit’s economic effects.

Fishing communities have faced complicated negotiations because Britain and the EU remain economically connected. The UK exports a significant proportion of its seafood, while European vessels have historically operated in British waters under negotiated arrangements.

Agriculture presents a similar challenge.

British farmers benefit from access to European markets but also face competition, regulatory requirements and changing subsidy arrangements.

The political question is how the government should balance sovereignty, domestic producers, consumer interests and international trade.

Farage’s answer is to place considerably greater emphasis on national control.

The wider economic argument

Farage’s criticism extends beyond fishing.

He argues that Brexit created an opportunity for Britain to reduce regulations inherited from the EU and develop a more independent economic model.

In his June essay, he promised that a Reform government would remove EU-derived regulations from the statute book and reduce what he regards as unnecessary regulatory constraints on British businesses. He also linked this agenda to opposition to Net Zero policies.

The economic debate is more complicated than simply choosing between Brussels and Westminster.

Britain trades extensively with the EU, and businesses operating internationally often value regulatory consistency because it can make cross-border trade easier.

At the same time, supporters of regulatory divergence argue that Britain cannot take advantage of its independence if it remains too closely tied to EU rules.

The disagreement is therefore partly about the economic value of regulatory autonomy versus the practical advantages of alignment.

Labour’s position

Labour has sought to maintain Britain’s departure from the EU while improving the practical relationship between the two sides.

The government has argued that closer cooperation can reduce unnecessary barriers without reversing Brexit.

Farage interprets the same process differently.

From his perspective, incremental agreements can gradually produce a relationship in which Britain has formally left the EU but remains heavily influenced by European rules.

That is why Reform treats individual negotiations as part of a much larger constitutional question.

The party’s June statement said only Reform could deliver what it described as the promises of Brexit and accused both Labour and the Conservatives of failing to properly implement the referendum result.

A political dividing line

Brexit remains unusually powerful in British political debate because it continues to divide politicians and voters over the country’s relationship with Europe.

The 2016 referendum produced a clear result, with Leave receiving 51.9% of the vote. Britain subsequently left the European Union in January 2020, followed by the end of the transition period in December 2020.

Since then, however, the debate has changed.

The question is no longer simply “Leave or Remain”.

It is increasingly about what Brexit should mean in practical terms.

Should Britain seek maximum regulatory independence? Should it prioritise frictionless trade with the EU? Should it expand cooperation in areas such as security, research and youth mobility? How should it balance national control against economic integration?

These are questions on which political parties have different answers.

Farage’s promise

For Farage, the answer is clear.

He has argued that Britain should use the freedoms created by Brexit rather than gradually reconstructing closer relationships with Brussels.

In his June essay, he said a future Reform government would remove EU regulatory influence, abandon what he considers excessive alignment and pursue a more independent economic and political strategy. He also proposed restoring the Turing exchange programme for young people.

The significance of this programme is that Farage is no longer simply defending the 2016 referendum.

He is presenting a new political interpretation of what should happen after Brexit.

That distinction matters.

The referendum established that Britain should leave the European Union. It did not provide a detailed policy programme covering every future relationship between Britain and the EU.

Governments since 2016 have therefore had to make decisions about trade, regulation, migration, security and cooperation.

Farage argues that those decisions have moved too far towards Brussels.

His political opponents argue that practical cooperation can strengthen Britain’s position without reversing Brexit.

The Starmer question

Although Starmer became the central target of Farage’s Brexit criticism in early 2026, the political landscape subsequently changed.

Starmer resigned as Prime Minister in July 2026 and was succeeded by Andy Burnham. That means that references to Starmer’s government and its approach to Europe need to be understood in their original time period.

Farage, however, has continued to make Brexit central to his political identity.

In his June writings, he presented the issue as part of a much longer struggle over Britain’s political direction. Reform argued that the Conservatives had failed to make sufficient use of Brexit and that Labour was moving towards closer integration with Europe.

The change of prime minister therefore does not remove the underlying dispute.

It simply changes the political opponent.

What Reform wants to reverse

The phrase “reverse Brexit betrayal” can mean different things depending on the policy being discussed.

For Farage, it means resisting closer regulatory alignment with the EU, defending national control over fisheries, reducing EU-derived regulation and preventing arrangements that could give European institutions greater influence over British policy.

It does not mean reversing Brexit itself.

Indeed, Farage has repeatedly presented Brexit as permanent and has argued that the next stage should be to make greater use of the independence created by leaving the EU.

That distinction is central to understanding Reform’s current position.

The party is not campaigning to leave the EU again. It is campaigning over what Britain should do now that it has already left.

A continuing argument over Britain’s future

Farage’s latest intervention demonstrates that Brexit remains a major dividing line within British politics a decade after the referendum.

His supporters see closer European integration as a potential dilution of the democratic choice made in 2016.

Those favouring closer cooperation argue that Britain can remain outside the EU while developing practical arrangements that improve trade, security and opportunities for citizens.

Neither interpretation changes the legal fact that Britain has left the European Union.

The political debate concerns what that departure should mean in practice.

For Reform UK, Farage’s answer is a much more expansive interpretation of sovereignty: fewer EU-derived rules, greater domestic control and a willingness to accept the consequences of regulatory divergence.

For those advocating closer cooperation, the emphasis is on maintaining the benefits of independent government while reducing unnecessary barriers between Britain and its largest neighbouring economic bloc.

That disagreement is unlikely to disappear simply because one prime minister leaves office.

Farage has spent much of his political career arguing that Brexit was not the end of the story but the beginning of a different political settlement. His latest pledge to reverse what he calls a “betrayal” is therefore part of a continuing campaign to define what that settlement should look like.

The central question for British politics is no longer whether Brexit happened.

It is what Britain chooses to do with the independence it gained from it.