Indeed, the United Kingdom and the European Union are still in the midst of negotiations to determine the terms of a Security and Defence Partnership. This programme is a very positive move towards re-establishing the two parties’ relationship after the transitional changes brought about by Brexit. The talks have reignited interest in a cooperative framework that could enhance both security protocols and defense strategies across Europe.
This unusual partnership has very deep historical roots. Boris Johnson was directly involved in similar parliamentary negotiations as Prime Minister in 2020. The new Labour administration, headed by Sir Keir Starmer, hopes to foster a closer, deeper and more constructive relationship with European allies. This change marks a reemergence of an emphasis on cooperation in security issues.
The Labour government would seek to establish new, regular forms of engagement with the EU, moving away from the approach of previous governments. Starmer has emphasized the importance of adopting “serious pragmatism” rather than engaging in performative politics, underscoring his administration’s practical approach to international relations.
Though, the buzz around this proposed partnership isn’t all positive. Lord Hayward has already expressed his concerns over such a deal. He thinks it would ensnare the federal government in a “bear trap,” creating a Bermuda Triangle-like mess or Lord knows what sort of perverse outcome. Hayward’s observations are an illustration of a wider concern about how these type of agreement could tie the UK to EU rules or commitments.
As talks move ahead, one of the chief architects of the original Brexit negotiations, David Davis, is watching closely. Kaja Kallas, to whom the EU has entrusted these discussions by putting her in the position of its foreign policy chief. Kallas has remarked on the urgency of moving forward with this partnership, stating, “considering what is going on in the world […] we need to move forward with this partnership.”
The UK and EU are collaborating through the Coalition of the Willing, focusing on defense initiatives that highlight mutual interests. One of these initiatives is the SAFE programme. It seeks to make available up to €150 billion (£126 billion) in loans to fund the establishment of new projects to boost security production capacities across Europe.
Beyond defense cooperation, the UK wants to conclude a mutual recognition agreement with the EU, although they call this a ‘veterinary’ deal. This agreement would remove several border inspections on food and drink products. These checks have been at the heart of virulent rows since Brexit. Nick Thomas-Symonds, seen as one of the intellectual architects of Labour’s current trade strategy, insists dashing down food and snack prices – a key pledge in the party’s 2019 election manifesto – is the main priority.
What happens in the dialogue surrounding these agreements has greater repercussions to UK-EU trade and mobility more widely. The proposed youth mobility deal could facilitate opportunities for under-30s from both regions to live and work in each other’s countries, promoting cultural exchange and workforce integration. Thomas-Symonds noted that “a smart, controlled youth mobility scheme would of course have benefits for our young people.”
Julianne Ponan, whose firm exports vegan snack bars to 18 countries, highlights the challenges faced by businesses navigating post-Brexit regulations. Her company has prospered in both bullish and recessionary markets. She knows that only 10 percent of their cheese exports actually reach the EU. This reality makes it all the more important to have ongoing discussions about how trade processes might be made more efficient.
As these negotiations continue, David Henig—a former senior trade negotiator—is helping both sides avoid pitfalls as they guide industries and lawmakers through complicated discussions. His expertise will be sorely tested as the UK begins the monumental task of finding its place and relationships in a new Europe.
At the same time, a debate rages on over NATO’s future in Europe’s defense strategy. As Alex Burghart puts it, “The bedrock of our defense is NATO.” He makes it clear that NATO by itself is enough to ensure our security, no more bureaucratic architectures needed. Even Brexit Party leader Richard Tice is singing from this hymn sheet. He continues, “We don’t want to be limited by a fumbling top down bureaucratic military model. Our defence is guaranteed by NATO.”
Calum Miller raises questions about the reluctance to engage more deeply with European neighbors: “When we are comfortable having those relationships, why are we so averse to having it with our nearest neighbours?” This announcement is indicative of a increasing wish from both sides of the aisle for better cooperation over the English Channel.
Going forward, the political dynamics on the UK side—especially within England—might impact the proceedings. Richard Tice warns that if his party gains power in the next general election, they would consider reversing any agreements made by the current government: “If I’m right about our fears, and we win the next general election, we will just reverse the lot. The whole lot.”