Lord Frost: Starmer’s “Brexit Betrayal Bill” Leaves Britain With “No Say” in Brussels Rules

Summary: Lord David Frost has warned that Labour’s planned EU “reset” Bill risks pulling Britain back under Brussels rule-making without a vote for MPs or the public, arguing it would leave the UK “subject to what Brussels decides” while having “no say” over the rules.

Lord Frost: “We will get no say”

Lord David Frost, the former Chief Negotiator for Exiting the European Union under Boris Johnson, has launched a fresh attack on Labour’s approach to post-Brexit relations with the EU.

Speaking to Camilla Tominey on GB News, Frost argued that Labour’s planned legislation would amount to a quiet transfer of control back towards Brussels, without the public being asked.

“It’s going to make us subject to what Brussels decides to do in this area, and we will get no say.”

Frost’s warning comes amid reports that the Government is preparing a wide-ranging “reset” Bill designed to underpin closer cooperation with the EU across multiple sectors.

What Labour’s EU “reset” Bill is expected to do

According to reporting on the planned Bill, ministers would be given powers to implement and update alignment mechanisms linked to new UK-EU arrangements, particularly in areas such as agrifoods and electricity trading.

Critics say the concern is not just what is written on day one, but the scope for future “dynamic” alignment that keeps pace with new EU rules, even when the UK has no vote in making them.

The reported policy areas in play include food standards and animal welfare, the electricity market, and carbon-related trading and costs.

A UK official cited in the reporting said a draft could be presented to Parliament in the spring or summer of 2026.

Frost’s core claim: Labour’s “repair” argument collapses into EU rule-taking

Frost said Labour’s approach stems from the belief that Brexit and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement caused economic damage that must be “repaired” by a new deal.

In his view, that logic leads to only one destination: re-entering EU legal frameworks sector by sector.

“Their only option is to go back into the EU’s legal framework for things like food, carbon costs, energy, electricity costs.”

He said that would “deprive us of the ability to set our own rules for our own interests, in our own country”, framing the row as a sovereignty question rather than a technical trade fix.

“Drifting back… bit by bit”: the single market warning

Frost also attacked Labour’s repeated insistence it will not take the UK back into the EU’s single market or customs union.

He argued that the single market can be entered in parts, and that sector-by-sector alignment is effectively that process in slow motion.

“The single market isn’t a thing that you are kind of a complete member of or not. You can be in bits of the single market… We are drifting back into the single market bit by bit.”

This is the political pressure point for Labour: closer ties may be sold as practical “barrier-busting”, but opponents brand it as rule-taking without representation.

Liberal Democrats push customs union vote as Labour faces pressure

The argument is also being inflamed by renewed pressure from committed Remainers in Parliament.

The Liberal Democrats have proposed a 10 Minute Rule Bill aimed at rejoining the EU’s customs union, and the move has been reported as attracting support from more than a dozen Labour MPs.

In the GB News exchange, Tominey put the broader point bluntly.

“Do you accept that these Remainers are never going to let this go?”

Frost agreed there is a “hard core remain establishment” that wants the UK back in the EU, and claimed it is taking “every step” to shift the country in that direction.

Why this matters: accountability, Parliament, and control

At the heart of the row is not a single clause but a wider fear about how major constitutional and economic decisions are made.

If the Government asks Parliament to grant broad powers before final UK-EU deals are settled, opponents argue MPs would be voting on a blank cheque.

Supporters of closer alignment argue it is a rational way to reduce friction in trade and cooperation. Critics argue it re-runs the pre-Brexit problem: rules set elsewhere, enforced through external mechanisms, with Britain locked into compliance.

As the Bill moves towards publication, the fight is likely to centre on one simple question: who makes the rules, and who can change them.