Nearly a decade after Britain voted to leave the European Union, the UK-EU relationship appears to have turned a corner. At a high-stakes summit in London on 19 May, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled a series of agreements, focusing on trade, defence and mobility.
The first formal leaders’ summit since the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the meeting aimed at resetting ties after years of post-Brexit tension.
Starmer hailed a “landmark deal” and “new partnership between an independent Britain and our allies in Europe”, while von der Leyen called the agreements “historic” in that they will “make a real difference to people in the UK and across our Union”.
While no one is suggesting a return to the single market or freedom of movement, the summit represents a deliberate shift from managed separation to functional alignment.
The range and scope of the agreements signal that both London and Brussels now recognise the strategic and economic costs of continued divergence.
Shared front on security and defence
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, European countries have increasingly recognised the need for closer coordination on defence and security.
The re-election of Donald Trump in the 2025 US presidential elections has only reinforced this trend, underlining the risks of overreliance on the United States for Europe’s security guarantees.
His renewed questioning of NATO commitments has sharpened the focus in European capitals on building more self-sufficient defence capabilities.
Both Keir Starmer and the European Union have made clear their support for enhanced European security collaboration.
While the UK and EU have worked closely on areas such as arms deliveries, intelligence sharing, and sanctions coordination since the beginning of the war, the new agreement aims to bring more structure and predictability to what has so far been a largely informal partnership.
The deal also sets out a mechanism for the UK to take part in selected EU defence initiatives, including the €150 billion SAFE programme, designed to strengthen European defence industrial capacity.
For the UK, this could offer access to new procurement opportunities and closer ties with European defence supply chains – though questions remain over the details of UK involvement, including governance arrangements, funding contributions, and regulatory compatibility.
Fisheries: long-term deal, short-term backlash
Among the more politically charged announcements was a 12-year extension of EU access to UK fishing waters, replacing a system that would have expired in 2026.
This move provides long-term stability for both British and EU fleets, avoiding annual quota disputes that had been a major source of post-Brexit tension.
By locking in reciprocal access until 2038, the deal avoids a potential cliff-edge of annual quota battles and provides “stability and predictability for fishers on both sides of the Channel”
European fleets can continue operating in UK waters (including the sensitive 6–12 nautical mile coastal zone) at existing quota levels, and UK boats likewise in EU waters, for the next decade-plus.
Both London and Brussels lauded the certainty this brings: “Ensuring reciprocal access to waters until 2038… is so important for long-term stability,” von der Leyen said
While the deal brings predictability, it drew sharp criticism from elements of the UK fishing industry and pro-Brexit politicians who viewed it as a retreat from the “take back control” narrative.
Reform UK leader Nigel said “the 12-year deal on access for European boats will be the end of the fishing industry”, while Elspeth Macdonald, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation said:
“This deal is a horrorshow for Scottish fishermen, far worse than Boris Johnson’s botched Brexit agreement.”
In response, the UK government announced a £360 million fund to support modernisation of the fishing sector and offset concerns.
The extension appears to be a calculated compromise: giving continuity to EU fleets while preserving key EU market access for UK seafood products, such as shellfish, previously blocked under post-Brexit rules.
Agri-food trade
The summit also produced a landmark agreement to create a UK–EU “Common Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Area,” designed to eliminate most border checks on food and agricultural products. Since Brexit, trade has been heavily disrupted by paperwork and health certifications, severely affecting British exporters.
Under the new SPS framework, the UK aligns its food safety and animal health rules with the EU’s in return for border-free trade in agri-food products. While not full regulatory convergence, this “dynamic alignment” approach means that when the EU updates standards, the UK will generally follow suit – except in areas where specific exemptions are negotiated.
This deal is expected to restore access for banned products like live molluscs and seed potatoes and reduce compliance costs across the supply chain. It also simplifies trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which already follows EU food rules under the Windsor Framework.
Although some critics warn of “rule-taking,” industry groups welcomed the move as pragmatic. Businesses have long complied with EU standards to maintain export access, and the SPS accord effectively reduces redundant checks while protecting biosecurity.
Estimates suggest the agreement could boost the UK economy by £9 billion and reduce food prices through more efficient trade. While the full legal text remains under development, the political commitment marks the clearest economic reconciliation since Brexit.
Mobility and travel: reconnecting the next generation
One of the most anticipated talking points of the summit was whether the two parties can crack a deal regarding the introduction of a youth mobility scheme – and if yes – what would that mean to British students and universities?
While full details are still being finalised, the parties agreed in principle to develop a new Youth Mobility Scheme, offering young people aged 18–30 the opportunity to live, work, study, or travel in each other’s territories for up to two years.
While full details remain under negotiation, the scheme is expected to be reciprocal and time-limited, with participant numbers capped and no pathway to permanent residency.
The UK has also signaled openness to rejoining the Erasmus+ programme, contingent on favorable financial terms. This marks a significant shift from the government’s previous stance, which had “no plans” to rejoin the scheme.
Universities UK, the collective voice for UK universities, has welcomed these developments. The organization has advocated for increased international mobility opportunities for students, emphasizing the benefits of cultural exchange and global collaboration.
Rejoining Erasmus+ and establishing a new YMS could help reverse the decline in EU student enrollment in UK universities since Brexit, which dropped from over 127,000 in 2015–16 to just over 75,000 in 2023–24 .
However, the proposals have faced criticism from opposition politicians. Shadow Foreign Secretary Dame Priti Patel and former Cabinet Minister Esther McVey have expressed concerns that the YMS could harm job prospects for young British citizens, especially given rising youth unemployment in the UK and high unemployment rates across Europe. They argue that allowing dependents and providing them access to benefits is a “red line” in negotiations.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has also expressed criticism about the scheme: “We have to look at countries on an individual basis. There is a big difference between taking a student from France or Germany or taking one from Albania or Romania. There is no distinguishing. When we say EU, everyone always thinks of the easy countries rather than the more difficult ones”, she said.
Despite these concerns, public opinion appears to favor increased youth mobility. A poll commissioned by Best for Britain found that an overwhelming majority of respondents support the UK government working with the EU to increase opportunities for young people to travel and work abroad.
Reactions and criticism
As anticipated, the summit outcome drew sharp criticism from opposition parties. Conservative figures denounced it as a betrayal, with leader Kemi Badenoch complaining that “we’re becoming a rule-taker from Brussels once again”.
Broadly, senior Tories and Brexit supporters (including Liz Truss and Grant Shapps) echoed those complaints of lost sovereignty. Reform UK (formerly the Brexit party) was even more scathing.
Deputy leader Richard Tice warned any youth-visa scheme would be the “thin end” of free movement. In the Commons, Badenoch called Starmer’s “hat-trick” of deals (with the EU, US and India) a series of “own goals,” labeling the EU agreement “pitiful” and insisting the government had “failed” to deliver.
While Reform leader Nigel Farage criticised the government on multiple fronts, he was notably absent from the parliamentary debate following the summit – taking time off to have his “first overseas break” for three years.
Despite the claim, Farage has made at least nine overseas trips since the general election in 2024 – most of them to the United States. Several of these visits were linked to paid speaking engagements or covered by donors. Notably, a trip to the U.S. last August, when Farage campaigned for Donald Trump, reportedly cost close to £33,000 for travel and accommodation for him and a staff member.
Farage’s current holiday comes while Parliament is still in session, just days before the Commons enters recess, raising eyebrows over the timing of his absence during key debates.
The move is seen as a strategic step by many, with Farage hoping to distance himself from his past, and making Reform UK a serious political opponent, rather than a “one trick pony” on Brexit or immigration.
Do people still care about Brexit?
While opposition parties – particularly the Conservatives and Reform UK – have fiercely criticised the government’s agreements with Brussels as a betrayal of Brexit, public opinion tells a different story.
Most Britons no longer view Brexit as a central political issue, and many now favour a closer relationship with the EU.
According to a recent YouGov poll conducted following the UK-EU summit, two-thirds of Britons (66 per cent) say the UK should aim to build a closer relationship with the EU, compared to just 14 per cent who believe the country should become more distant. Among those who voted Leave in 2016, a significant 42 per cent now support closer EU ties – a clear shift from the more rigid Brexit lines of the past.
Majority of Britons now see Brexit in a negative light, saying it has been more of a failure than a success. Around 62 per cent say Brexit was a failure, 53 per cent would support Britain rejoining the EU, with 66 per cent supporting the UK having a closer relationship than it does now.
Crucially, however, Brexit is no longer a defining campaign issue for the electorate. In a YouGov survey, only 8 per cent of Britons listed Brexit as one of the top issues influencing their vote, compared to 45 per cent who cited the cost of living, 34 per cent health care, and 32 per cent the economy. Even among Leave-voting households, only 3 per cent named Brexit as their main concern.
In 2019, by comparison, over 60 per cent said Brexit was a leading issue for the country – meaning public attention on the matter has plummeted in the past five years.
The gap between vocal Brexit hardliners and public sentiment is now stark. While Conservative backbenchers and Reform UK politicians loudly decry any close ties with Brussels, most voters seem fatigued, with many regarding the question “settled” or even regretting the move to leave.
Featured image via Fred Duval / Shutterstock.
