Bridging the Channel: The UK’s Strategic Pivot Back to Europe
On May 19th, the UK government will meet with EU leaders in the first summit since Brexit. The meeting is the first of what is to be an annual bilateral summit focused on building a stronger partnership between London and Brussels. Once, these meetings would happen around 4 times a year. Since Brexit, those meetings were completely halted.
Now, the Labour government promised “...an improved and ambitious relationship with our
European partners”. The UK and EU have been cooperating more closely in recent years, with things such as The Coalition of the Willing. A new pact would further strength these ties, a critical step towards a robust, intertwined, and efficient partnership.
Conservatives, however, have a different view of the summit. They call it a “Surrender Summit”, a “Great British Sellout”. Andrew Griffith, the Conservative Shadow Business and Trade Secretary said the UK would lose "our freedom to set our own rules". Richard Tice, Reform UK's deputy leader, asked "Why would you want to reset and get closer to a patently failing economic model? The EU is struggling even more than we are. We should be diverging as fast as we can away from that."
Conservatives are unlikely to ever acknowledge that Brexit was a mistake, regardless of its consequences. This presents an opportunity for Keir Starmer to demonstrate that, in his own words, "serious pragmatism defeats performative politics." While bound by the policy red lines established at the beginning of his government’s term, Starmer’s Labour Party must make a compelling case to the British public for why a reset in UK–EU relations is now more necessary than ever.
Starmer really has no choice but to capitulate to some of their demands. Before Labour was in power, Starmer opposed Brexit vehemently. By the time he was in power, the UK was out of the EU, and Starmer figured Labour should accept this outcome. Advisers told him that attempts to remove or reduce Brexit terms would cost many votes Labour needed to be in power, and he listened. He created red lines that he cannot cross even now, including not returning to the single market, no customs union membership, and no free movement of people. Going back on these would cost Labour key political capital, a cost it cannot hope to bear.
Starmer’s stated objective has never been to reverse Brexit, but to "make Brexit work" through a pragmatic approach. Yet even with significant concessions aimed at appeasing Conservative critics, those on the right remain unsatisfied. Reform UK leader Richard Tice has gone so far as to threaten that his party would dismantle any agreements reached with the EU, declaring, “If I'm right about our fears, and we win the next general election, we will just reverse the lot. The whole lot.” This underscores a broader dynamic: the opposition will eagerly accept any compromise Labour offers, only to demand more until nothing remains. In such a climate, conceding ground for the sake of political optics is futile. Importantly, around three-quarters of those who backed Labour in the 2024 election previously voted Remain in the Brexit referendum. This suggests the political risk of pursuing renewed cooperation with the EU is far smaller than it may appear.
For the meeting to result in meaningful and lasting progress, any agreement reached must go beyond symbolic gestures and establish a concrete framework for enhanced security cooperation. This includes not only improved intelligence sharing and coordinated responses to emerging threats but also the development of joint strategies to address issues such as terrorism, cybercrime, and geopolitical instability. With Washington signaling a decrease in its presence on the continent, strengthening these ties would help rebuild trust, bolster mutual resilience, and demonstrate a shared commitment to maintaining regional and global security. Starmer laid out key points he wishes to make progress on at the summit. These include deeper defence cooperation, establishing a clear agreement on EU fishing access to UK waters, facilitating youth mobility across the EU, and rejoining key EU databases on crime and migration.
Bridging the Strategic Divide
In 2020, when then Prime Minister Boris Johnson was negotiating Brexit, a Security and Defense partnership was floated. However, Johnson's goal was independence from Brussels. As a result, any formal agreement on defence and security cooperation was ultimately sidelined, leaving a significant gap in UK–EU strategic relations at a time when cross-border threats were becoming increasingly complex and interconnected.
Now, a pact could be within reach. Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, oversaw early negotiations at Lancaster House. "Considering what is going on in the world […] we need to move forward with this partnership.” She told Telegraph’s Damian Grammaticas. Her involvement signals a renewed sense of urgency and commitment on the EU side to reestablish strategic ties with the UK.
Kaja Kallas at the European Council, Belgium, 2022. (Photo by Nicolas
Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Any agreement reached must go beyond vague assurances and political rhetoric. If Keir Starmer is committed to prioritizing pragmatism over performative politics, as he has claimed, he must confront the core defence challenges facing both the UK and the EU. These include addressing persistent funding and capability gaps, improving joint deployment and military mobility, and streamlining defence production to reduce costly duplication across member states. A credible partnership must be built on practical solutions, not symbolic gestures.
Fragmentation in the EU defense sector has been a persistent issue. Member states frequently make national defence decisions in isolation, undermining overall efficiency and severely limiting interoperability. A renewed agreement should prioritise aligning the UK and EU defence industries—not as competitors, but as strategic partners. In a climate where the reliability of NATO can no longer be taken for granted, European nations must move beyond internal competition and commit to deeper collaboration to safeguard their collective security.
For example, the SAFE (Security Action for Europe) programme is being set up by the EU to allow nearly 150 billion Euros in loans for new projects. If the UK can set up a deal, British defense industries could potentially have access to some of this cash. Kevin Craven, chief executive of ADS Group, a UK trade association that represents aerospace, defence and security firms said estimated that the UK could boost the EU’s defense output by a fifth.
However, opponents say the UK should not care to work so closely on defense with the EU. "The cornerstone of our defence is NATO," Alex Burghart, a Conservative frontbencher, told the Commons this week. "We know of no reason why NATO is insufficient." Richard Tice concurred, saying "We do not want to be constrained by a bungling top-down bureaucratic military structure. Our defence is guaranteed by NATO."
The Labour government responded by saying the partnership will not undermine NATO, but rather complement it. It will stretch beyond defense, including things such as infrastructure, energy supplies, and migration. Critics of the plan should be met with clear-eyed resolve. Many of them, while having championed separation from the EU in the name of sovereignty, now cling to NATO dependence, even as its reliability is increasingly in question. This inconsistency exposes the need for a more self-reliant and cooperative European approach to security. These are the same people who wouldn’t lift a finger to bolster their own defences, even if Russian tanks were at their doorstep. Their views lack both credibility and conviction, and should be treated accordingly.
Opening Doors, Raising Fences
A youth mobility deal has sparked interest in recent months, a scheme which would allow students under 30 to live and work in each other's countries. This would boost research and innovation across Europe. The government said there were "no plans" for such a deal for quite a while, but earlier this month they flipped, with Labour's Thomas-Symonds saying "A smart, controlled youth mobility scheme would of course have benefits for our young people". The UK has similar schemes set in place with 13 countries already, including Australia, Japan, and India.
The UK has not joined the EU’s Erasmus program, which funds exchanges in education, sports, and training, but has joined its Horizon Research program.
This has led to fractures in the EU government. Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer, champions it for the economic benefits it would surely bring. Yvette Cooper, Secretary of State for the Home Department, has a different perspective. She advocates for an “one in, one out” agenda, keeping her goal of remaining “immigration neutral”, while keeping the benefits of youth mobility, and standing ground on keeping the youth for a maximum of one year before needing to renew. There is expected to be a compromise on this issue on the 19th, but it is not certain.
Fishing for Influence
After Brexit, British fishermen were not pleased with Boris Johnson’s decision to allow EU ships to fish in UK waters, taking significant catches. These arrangements expire next year, opening the door for a new commitment on this front.
The 2021 fisheries deal allowed EU ships to fish in the UK waters, and British fishers want the next deal to be less generous to the EU. British fishing makes up a tiny role in the British economy, but right-leaning British politicians attach nostalgia to the trade. It provokes feelings of nationalism and days gone past, of fish and chip shops which are a cornerstone of British culture and cuisine. Conservatives may want to consider that 55% of English fishing fleet quotas were delivered to EU countries. The UK needs access to these markets if they truly want to keep their fishing industry alive, something that is not guaranteed if they force worse fishing rights for EU ships. EU coastal states like France and Denmark have already signaled that they will not stand down easily, looking to force concessions on fishing rights from London in exchange for access to their markets.
The Migration Tug-of-War
Starmer sees rejoining the EU’s crime and illegal migration database as a win-win situation. Intelligence cooperation would allow both blocs to combat terrorism, gangs, and illegal migration more effectively. He also wants to rejoin the Dublin Agreement, allowing Britain the right to send back illegal migrants who arrived from EU member states.
The EU uses the European Arrest Warrant, Europol, and the Schengen Information System, which are designed specifically for member states. The EAW streamlines extradition processes across the EU, allowing for swift cross-border arrests and transfers of suspects. Europol serves as the EU’s central agency for criminal intelligence, facilitating coordination in tackling serious organised crime and terrorism. Meanwhile, the SIS enables real-time sharing of data on wanted individuals, missing persons, stolen property, and potential security threats. Since these mechanisms are designed with full EU membership in mind, the UK’s exclusion post-Brexit has significantly hampered its ability to collaborate effectively on cross-border policing and security.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer meets European Commission president Ursula von
der Leyen in Brussels (Omar Havana/AP) (AP)
When the UK chose to leave the European Union, it also relinquished its automatic rights to access critical EU databases. It was sacrificed, in part, on the altar of sovereignty. EU officials have since accused Britain of attempting to cherry-pick: seeking the advantages of membership without accepting the responsibilities that come with it. If the UK hopes to regain access to these vital tools; particularly to address pressing migration and security challenges, it will need to offer meaningful concessions, whether in defence cooperation or other strategic areas. London must demonstrate to its EU counterparts that it is prepared to engage in a balanced, reciprocal partnership, one where it gives as much as it expects to receive.
Edge of an Unknown Tomorrow
May 19th has the potential to mark a turning point in UK–EU relations, one that could lay the foundation for a more unified global order. Such a shift would see the UK share the burden of European defence alongside France, Germany, and Poland, reinforcing collective security not only for the continent but potentially on a global scale. Greater unity would project strength, and enhanced interoperability could pave the way for a more assertive European Union, one less vulnerable to coercion from adversaries like Russia.
However, Starmer’s messaging on the issue remains inconsistent, leaving the government’s position ambiguous. On one hand, he speaks of resetting relations with the EU; on the other, he remains bound by the Brexit-era red lines. He rules out the return of free movement, yet supports the reintroduction of a youth mobility scheme that closely mirrors it. He rejects rejoining the single market, yet advocates for deeper cooperation in defence and agriculture, areas that may require alignment with EU regulations. This ambiguity risks undermining trust on both sides, making it harder to build the very partnerships the UK now needs. Making Brexit work may not be in the cards.
The truth is, Brexit was a mistake. While Prime Minister Keir Starmer cannot fully reverse the damage, he faces a complex political landscape that demands caution. A full retreat risks alienating Leave voters and could open the door for the Reform Party (already making gains, as seen in the May 2nd local elections) to siphon support. Starmer’s challenge is to mitigate the lasting economic harm of Brexit, including the estimated 4% blow to the UK economy, while maintaining political stability. At the same time, he must tread carefully with Washington, particularly in light of recent trade agreements. Yet in an era defined by unpredictability, where a U.S. president can impose tariffs one day and revoke them the next, placing too much trust in the "special relationship" is risky. Should Donald Trump return to office and renege on the deal, the UK could find itself facing 20% tariffs and a shattered transatlantic alliance.
Despite Brexit, the European Union remains the UK's largest trading partner, with 41% of British goods still destined for EU markets. This is more than the United States, India, and the entire Indo-Pacific region combined. The EU offers stability, predictability, and reliability — qualities essential for forging long-term, mutually beneficial agreements. Rather than clinging to the uncertain promise of rescue from NATO or over-relying on the United States, the UK must now prioritise rebuilding strong, strategic ties with its European neighbours. Brexit was a historic miscalculation, but this summit presents a vital opportunity to begin correcting that course.