Prepare for renegotiations on the EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement
Reform UK · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “Prepare for renegotiations on the EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Prosperity & living standards — Genuinely contested
n/a · low confidence
This policy only commits to 'preparing' for renegotiations — there is no guaranteed outcome, and whether any actual renegotiation would help or hurt living standards depends entirely on what terms emerge. The evidence suggests the EU would strongly resist weakening the level-playing-field rules, and that regulatory divergence so far has yielded limited benefits while increased trade barriers have already hurt productivity.
The evidence
- The policy commits to preparing for renegotiations on the TCA, characterising the level-playing-field provisions as holding Britain back. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will prepare for renegotiations on the EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, stating that a 'level playing field' is holding Britain back.”
- The OBR projects the post-Brexit TCA trading relationship will reduce long-run UK productivity by 4% relative to remaining in the EU. — obr.uk (institutional) — “The OBR forecasts that the post-Brexit trading relationship, as set out in the TCA, will reduce long-run UK productivity by 4% relative to remaining in the EU, largely due to increased non-tariff barriers”
- UK goods exports to the EU were 14% below their 2019 real-terms level as of 2025. — brexitfactbase.com (media) — “In 2025, UK goods exports to the EU were 14% below their 2019 real-terms level”
- Any attempt to significantly weaken LPF provisions would likely face strong EU resistance and potential retaliatory measures. — export.org.uk (media) — “Any attempt to significantly weaken these provisions would likely be met with strong resistance and potential retaliatory measures from the EU”
Biggest unknown: Whether the EU would agree to any meaningful weakening of LPF provisions, or instead trigger the TCA's rebalancing mechanism imposing new tariffs on UK goods, is entirely unresolved — the direction of effect on living standards flips depending on that answer.
Our reading: The policy as stated is purely preparatory — 'prepare for renegotiations' involves no committed instrument, no quantified target, and no guaranteed outcome. Under the soft-verb rule alone, this would score negligible. However, the aspiration is directionally clear: weakening or removing LPF provisions. The genuine uncertainty arises at the next level: what would actually happen if renegotiations were pursued in earnest? The evidence points in two opposed directions. On the downside: the OBR projects a 4% long-run productivity loss from the current TCA, and UK goods exports are already 14% below 2019 levels. If renegotiations triggered EU rebalancing countermeasures, this would compound existing trade damage — directly harming business investment and real living standards. The institutional consensus is that the EU views LPF as foundational and would resist weakening it. On the upside: proponents argue regulatory freedom could unlock dynamism, but Resolution Foundation and UK in a Changing Europe find divergence benefits to date have been limited and outweighed by integration costs. The policy does not reach a renegotiation outcome — it only 'prepares'. The actual effect on O13 is entirely contingent on: (a) whether renegotiations are formally triggered; (b) what the EU agrees to; (c) whether greater regulatory freedom materialises in productive investment gains; and (d) whether countermeasures are imposed. No provided evidence resolves this chain. The crux — EU acceptance vs. retaliation — spans outcomes from modest productivity gain to accelerated trade deterioration. This is genuine uncertainty: credible analysts disagree on mechanism and magnitude, and the deciding parameter is unobservable in advance. 'Too-uncertain' is therefore the honest verdict.
Cost of living — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
Renegotiating the EU trade deal to reduce the 'level playing field' rules risks triggering EU tariffs on UK goods, which would push up prices for ordinary consumers. The main uncertainty is whether the EU would actually retaliate, and how far any renegotiation would go.
The evidence
- The policy proposes preparing for renegotiations on the TCA, arguing the 'level playing field' is holding Britain back. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will prepare for renegotiations on the EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, stating that a 'level playing field' is holding Britain back.”
- The level playing field provisions are designed to prevent competitive advantage through lower standards; diverging from them can trigger rebalancing measures including tariffs. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “Should significant divergence occur and materially impact trade or investment, the TCA includes a "rebalancing mechanism" allowing either side to take countermeasures, including the imposition of tariffs”
- The OBR projects the post-Brexit TCA relationship will reduce long-run UK productivity by 4% relative to remaining in the EU. — obr.uk (institutional) — “The OBR forecasts that the post-Brexit trading relationship, as set out in the TCA, will reduce long-run UK productivity by 4% relative to remaining in the EU, largely due to increased non-tariff barriers”
- Further divergence from EU standards risks the EU imposing tariffs or countermeasures that increase costs for businesses and consumers. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “This could lead to the EU imposing tariffs or other countermeasures on UK goods, increasing costs for businesses and consumers”
- Any attempt to significantly weaken LPF provisions would likely face strong resistance and potential retaliatory measures from the EU. — export.org.uk (media) — “Any attempt to significantly weaken these provisions would likely be met with strong resistance and potential retaliatory measures from the EU”
Biggest unknown: Whether the EU would accept changes to level-playing-field provisions or instead impose countermeasure tariffs that raise consumer prices.
Our reading: The policy is at the 'stated' stage only — it commits to preparing for renegotiation, not to any specific outcome. However, the direction of risk on cost of living can be assessed from what the policy signals and what the evidence shows would follow. The LPF provisions are the mechanism that keeps current tariff-free goods trade in place. If renegotiation sought to reduce them — which the 'holding Britain back' framing implies — the EU's rebalancing mechanism allows it to impose countermeasure tariffs. Tariffs on goods trade raise import prices directly, with lower-income households typically more exposed to goods price inflation as a share of their spending. The OBR projects a 4% long-run productivity hit from the existing TCA terms. Further divergence — the implicit goal of renegotiation — risks compounding that. Credible analysts (Resolution Foundation, UK in a Changing Europe) find that regulatory divergence benefits have been limited and outweighed by trade costs. The EU has shown it treats LPF as non-negotiable given proximity and interdependence. The policy is preparatory only, so the magnitude is not guaranteed — outcomes depend on what is actually renegotiated and whether the EU retaliates. That uncertainty moderates confidence. But the direction of risk, as evidenced, is toward higher consumer prices through tariff escalation or reduced trade flows, worsening cost of living rather than improving it. No cited evidence supports a cost-of-living improvement pathway from this policy.
Good work & fair pay — Hurts
moderate · moderate confidence
Renegotiating to weaken the TCA's level-playing-field rules — which include protections for workers' rights — risks triggering EU tariffs on UK goods, harming jobs and wages. Research suggests any gains from regulatory freedom would likely be outweighed by increased trade barriers.
The evidence
- The policy aims to renegotiate the TCA on grounds that the 'level playing field' is holding Britain back. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will prepare for renegotiations on the EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, stating that a 'level playing field' is holding Britain back.”
- The TCA includes a rebalancing mechanism allowing either side to impose tariffs if significant divergence materially affects trade. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “Should significant divergence occur and materially impact trade or investment, the TCA includes a "rebalancing mechanism" allowing either side to take countermeasures, including the imposition of tariffs”
- EU tariffs or countermeasures would increase costs for businesses, harming jobs and pay. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “This could lead to the EU imposing tariffs or other countermeasures on UK goods, increasing costs for businesses and consumers”
- Any attempt to significantly weaken LPF provisions would likely meet strong EU resistance and retaliatory measures. — export.org.uk (media) — “Any attempt to significantly weaken these provisions would likely be met with strong resistance and potential retaliatory measures from the EU”
- The UK's existing international commitments, including the TCA, limit the scope for deregulation through weakening the LPF. — economy2030.resolutionfoundation.org (institutional) — “the UK's existing international commitments, including the TCA itself, limit the scope for "de-liberalisation" through the LPF”
Biggest unknown: Whether the EU would agree to weaken labour and social standard provisions, or instead impose retaliatory tariffs that damage UK employment and business conditions.
Our reading: The TCA's level-playing-field provisions explicitly include labour and social standards — protections for workers' rights — alongside subsidy control, competition, and environmental rules. The policy's stated goal of removing these constraints, framed as freeing Britain from rules that hold it back, would require persuading the EU to weaken commitments it treated as essential in the original negotiations. The TCA's rebalancing mechanism means that if the UK diverges significantly, the EU can respond with tariffs. Analysts from the Resolution Foundation and UK in a Changing Europe find that benefits of regulatory divergence have so far been limited and outweighed by the costs of reduced integration. For workers specifically, two risks emerge: first, weakening labour-standard non-regression clauses could open the door to reduced employment protections over time; second, EU retaliatory tariffs would raise costs for UK exporters, threatening jobs and wages in trade-exposed sectors. The feasibility of achieving meaningful LPF concessions from the EU is assessed as low by institutional analysts. On balance, the evidence points to this policy worsening the good work and fair pay outcome — primarily through trade disruption risk and potential erosion of labour protections — with limited credible upside for workers. Confidence is moderate because the actual outcome depends heavily on negotiating dynamics that cannot be predicted with certainty.
Clean environment & nature — Hurts
minor · low confidence
The level-playing-field provisions Reform UK wants to renegotiate include the environmental and climate commitments that currently stop the UK from weakening green standards. Removing or diluting them could open the door to lower environmental rules, though this is only a preparation to renegotiate — not a guaranteed outcome.
The evidence
- The policy aims to renegotiate the TCA on the grounds that the level playing field is holding Britain back. — reformparty.uk (manifesto) — “Reform UK will prepare for renegotiations on the EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, stating that a 'level playing field' is holding Britain back.”
- The TCA's non-regression clause commits both parties not to weaken environmental protections in a manner affecting trade. — cambridge.org (media) — “A key aspect of the LPF is the "non-regression" clause, which commits both parties not to weaken or reduce their existing levels of protection in these areas in a manner affecting trade or investment”
- The EU has already passed 28 new environmental laws that the UK has not adopted, showing existing divergence. — brexitfactbase.com (media) — “The EU has strengthened its regulations (e.g., through the European Green Deal), passing 28 new environmental laws that the UK has not adopted”
- The UK currently permits 14 pesticides that the EU has banned since Brexit. — brexitfactbase.com (media) — “The UK permits 14 pesticides that the EU has banned since Brexit”
- Significant LPF divergence could trigger EU countermeasures including tariffs. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “Should significant divergence occur and materially impact trade or investment, the TCA includes a "rebalancing mechanism" allowing either side to take countermeasures, including the imposition of tariffs”
- Attempts to significantly weaken LPF provisions would likely face strong EU resistance. — export.org.uk (media) — “Any attempt to significantly weaken these provisions would likely be met with strong resistance and potential retaliatory measures from the EU”
Biggest unknown: Whether renegotiation would succeed in weakening environmental provisions at all, given EU resistance, and whether any resulting divergence would meaningfully lower UK standards beyond those already diverging.
Our reading: The LPF provisions Reform UK explicitly targets include binding environmental and climate commitments and a non-regression clause that currently constrains the UK from weakening green standards. The UK has already diverged in some areas — permitting banned pesticides and not adopting 28 EU environmental laws — but the LPF still provides a floor below which the UK cannot drop without triggering rebalancing measures. Renegotiating away or weakening these provisions would remove that floor, potentially enabling further downward divergence in environmental standards. The direction of effect on O6 is therefore worsening. However, two major qualifications limit the magnitude and confidence. First, the policy is only to 'prepare for renegotiations' — a soft-verb commitment with no confirmed instrument or outcome. Renegotiation success is uncertain; the EU treats LPF provisions as essential and resistance would be strong. Second, even if renegotiated, the UK would need to actively choose to lower standards — divergence is an enabler, not an automatic outcome. The effect would be felt over the long term as regulatory divergence compounds. Given the weak policy instrument and uncertain renegotiation pathway, the verdict is worsens/minor/long-term at low confidence.