The government has been criticised for a perceived lack of “overall strategic vision” in setting out the future of the UK-EU relationship, in a lengthy letter that expresses several pressing concerns with ministers’ approach to negotiations.
Pointing to conflicting statements issued by ministers, the foreign affairs select committee says it has heard “repeatedly” from its counterparts in Europe that they remain unclear about the government’s policy for the overall UK-EU relationship.
In a letter addressed to the prime minister, Keir Starmer, the committee has called for the government to be “bold” and “ambitious”, conveying its fear that the EU will not respond positively to the current approach.
The cross-party group of MPs, chaired by former Labour frontbencher Dame Emily Thornberry, notes that “significant political leadership” is required to overcome the legacy of low trust created by the Brexit negotiations. It has also called for a “more compelling UK political narrative about the UK-EU relationship”, which could see the respective teams move beyond such barriers.
The committee states: “While the government has shown a clear commitment and demonstrable progress in some areas in wanting to achieve a meaningful reset with the EU, the evidence we have received suggests its approach to the reset lacks an overall strategic vision, or at least not one that is being communicated clearly to external parties outside of Whitehall.”
The letter outlines the committee’s support for the government to explore the scope for a balanced UK-EU mobility scheme for young people. But the committee maintains that any such scheme must be mutually beneficial, include protections against its abuse, and face a debate then vote in the House of Commons.
In its letter, the committee comments: “It seems likely that the government’s insistence until this month that there were ‘no plans’ for a youth mobility scheme with the EU, despite this clearly being a key ask from the other side, may have lost the UK goodwill on the EU side to also look at some of its ‘red lines’ again to determine if some new flexibilities on issues such as trade barriers were possible.”
It adds: “We have been told that the EU would likely respond to such ambition, but the UK needs to be the first mover given its decision to leave [with Brexit].”
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
Significantly, the committee suggests that the EU’s “Youth Experience Scheme” demand “would be very different” to the free movement that existed before Brexit. The government has repeatedly stressed that a return to free movement is a red line in any negotiations.
The committee states: “With a limit on the time that beneficiaries could spend in the UK, the evidence suggests that such a scheme could be designed in a way that is compatible with the government’s ambitions on reducing net migration figures.”
In a major speech in Brussels earlier this year, the minister for the constitution and European Union relations, Nick Thomas-Symonds, set out “three pillars” that would shape the government’s approach to negotiations: prosperity, safety and security.
Thomas-Symonds went on to say “ruthless pragmatism” would serve as the UK government’s guiding principle and declared that “the time for ideologically driven division is over.”
The committee has now questioned whether this approach is “sufficient”, noting concerns expressed in Europe that the framing fails to recognise the “strategic importance” of the reset.
The letter reads: “The ‘ruthless pragmatism’, which the minister for EU relations has adopted as the guiding principle for the UK’s approach to the reset, may not be sufficient; it has been suggested to us that UK public diplomacy in the EU built around this framing has so far failed to convince key stakeholders of the strategic importance for both sides of making the reset a success.”
It adds: “The committee has heard that there is a noticeable lack of interest in the reset process in public and political debate in the EU when compared to the UK, which may also reflect the absence of a coherent UK ‘pitch’ beyond seeking technical fixes to specific policy issues, like a Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement to reduce barriers to agri-food trade.
“The government has also been noticeably reluctant to discuss the trade-offs inherent in any reset, or how closer ties with the EU could affect the UK-US relationship.”
Along these lines, the committee regrets what it terms the government’s “piecemeal” approach, claiming that there is “no comprehensive overview of the outcomes the UK is seeking to achieve” through the reset.
The committee’s letter reads: “Ministers’ ambitions, such as an SPS Agreement, are described only in the most general terms in official documents and statements in parliament and are nowhere brought together in a single document.”
Comparing the approaches adopted by the UK and EU, it adds: “We note by contrast that the EU continues to publish relatively detailed outlines of its negotiating position across different aspects of the reset, especially for areas that require new binding UK-EU agreements.”
The committee also voices concern that the government’s “piecemeal and secretive approach” to the reset is complicating scrutiny, which could negatively affect the stability and durability of the reset.
Dame Emily, in whose name the letter is signed, notes that while ministers have repeatedly insisted that they will not provide “a running commentary” on the UK-EU negotiations, there have been almost continuous, but unattributed, briefings to the press about developments in the government’s position.
Regarding media briefings, the letter states: “These have most recently included reports, not to our knowledge denied by the government, that ministers may at the upcoming summit agree to explore alignment with EU rules in areas such as agri-food, product safety, energy trading and carbon emissions; will, despite earlier denials, enter into negotiations on a youth mobility scheme; is working with the EU on a joint declaration committing to working together on major geopolitical challenges; and is willing to roll over current levels of access to UK waters by EU fishing boats beyond 2026…
“None of the possible outcomes of the summit suggested by recent briefings to the press, which would all be significant policy choices in their own right, have been put to parliament by the government.”
The committee is insistent that effective scrutiny and accountability requires ministers to articulate what their “objectives and proposals” for the reset are. “This is not a desirable state of affairs”, Thornberry notes.
***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***
On defence and security cooperation, the committee has called on the government to use the UK-EU reset to establish a relationship that “reflects the importance of coordinated action, particularly — but not exclusively — in relation to continued support for Ukraine given Russia’s continued attacks and the changes in policy in the United States.”
The committee expresses its hope that the EU will be persuaded by the “needs of the moment” to include the UK as part of the new Security and Defence Partnership.
The committee has also urged the government to make rapid progress in dismantling trade barriers, and for ministers to be ambitious in their offer to the EU. The letter calls for clarity when it comes to the possibility of UK alignment with EU rules and points to an “apparent disparity” between the two sides on the envisaged outcome.
The letter states: “We note… that the EU’s chief negotiator in his recent intervention in the European Parliament did not mention trade or growth as a focus area for the summit, which may reflect a divergence in views on the purpose the reset should serve.”
Commenting ahead of the letter’s publication, committee chair Dame Emily said: “We should be clear about what it is that we want and act with a little less caution and a lot more confidence. If we do this, there is every reason to believe the EU will respond positively.
“European nations are amongst the UK’s closest and most important allies. We are fellow liberal democracies with shared values and history, as well as common challenges. While it would be foolish not to acknowledge that the relationship between the UK and EU still bears the scars of the Brexit negotiations, we need to look to the future, not remain stuck in the past.
“Over the course of our inquiry so far, much of the evidence we have heard indicates that the UK public is ready to move on from the tensions of Brexit and embrace a wide-ranging reset in our relations with the EU. It now falls to the government to reflect this shift and to be bolder and more ambitious.
“The trade deals recently struck with the USA and India provide new opportunities for the UK economy to thrive and grow. But these agreements are not substitutes for doing the hard work of dismantling the trade barriers between the UK and EU.
“There have already been tentative steps in the right direction, and in today’s letter, our cross-party committee supports the government’s decision to consider a Youth Mobility Scheme, which could deliver opportunity for young people across Europe.
“The war in Ukraine teaches us that we must work with like-minded nations to defend democracy and the rules-based international order. Let’s hope that the summit on Monday is the beginning of a new chapter of closer cooperation on defence and security with our friends in Europe.”
Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
