������Ƶ

The EU and the UK this week embarked on a new chapter in their relations by signing a “reset” deal at their first formal summit since London left the bloc in 2020. Leaders on both sides stressed the significance of this event. Prime Minister Keir Starmer expressed hope that “Britain is back on the world stage,” while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called it a “historic moment.” However, critics were quick to decry it as a “betrayal” of the Brexit vote. I believe this deal is a necessity and serves as an adaptation to recent geopolitical developments.

The key points agreed involve border regulations for both humans and animals. This includes “eGate” access for UK passport holders, saving them time when traveling to EU countries. The deal also introduces pet passports as, after Brexit, British pet owners had to obtain a certificate from a vet in the UK before traveling and then a vet in the EU before returning. Pet passports remove the requirement to obtain animal health certificates for every trip.

Another topic that has been debated over many years (and which has a complex history) is fishing rights. This has culminated in no alterations to the current access for EU trawlers to UK waters agreed in 2020. It will continue for the next 12 years. EU fishing vessels can fish in British waters, but they require an approved license.

The economic and financial matters involve business, taxes and trading systems. One initiative is the introduction of a new sanitary and phytosanitary deal that aims to decrease red tape for most food and drink exports and imports. This could lower food prices and increase the choice on supermarket shelves.

Another vital matter is the issue of carbon taxation. Collaboration is expected on emissions, connecting the EU and UK’s emissions trading systems. Under the deal, UK businesses will be exempt from the EU’s carbon tax, saving the UK £800 million ($1.07 billion) in EU tariffs. Also, British steel exports will be safe from new EU tariffs and rules, which will save the industry £25 million a year.

One initiative is the introduction of a new sanitary and phytosanitary deal that aims to decrease red tape. 

Dr. Diana Galeeva

As for defense and security, the UK defense industry is expected to participate in the EU’s €150 billion ($169 billion) Security Action for Europe defense fund. The EU and UK will improve their collaboration on accident reporting, in addition to maritime security. Moreover, the parties agreed to enter talks about the UK getting access to EU facial image data to track dangerous criminals. Also, the deal encourages the UK’s National Crime Agency and Europol to collaborate in swapping data about serious crimes and terrorism.

As part of the deal, the EU and UK have agreed to work toward a youth mobility scheme that will permit people aged 18 to 30 to live and work freely on either side for a limited period of time. This encompasses negotiations over the UK rejoining the EU’s Erasmus+ scheme.

Migration is another major theme, as the two sides agreed to work on finding solutions to deal with illegal migration, including a joint commitment to deal with English Channel crossings.

Finally, the EU and the UK stated that they would study British participation in the bloc’s internal electricity market, involving trading platforms.

In Britain, the deal has already received predictable criticism as “surrendering” anew to the EU. “We’re becoming a rule-taker from Brussels once again”, bemoaned the leader of the opposition Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch. Meanwhile, the Reform UK party accused the Labour government of “betraying” the Brexit vote. However, in light of the ongoing global developments, the plan seems a necessity more than anything else — and not just for London, but for Brussels too.

Firstly, shared geography is an unignorable factor. The Arab reader will understand this dilemma better than anyone in the world, after years of ongoing debates about how to deal with Iran. While Iranian foreign policies and its nuclear program have been considered a security threat, Iran is adjacent to these countries, so it has been dangerous to directly counter this threat. This means countries have maintained pragmatic relations with Tehran.

In light of global developments, the plan seems a necessity more than anything else — and not just for London.

Dr. Diana Galeeva

In the case of London and Brussels, the situation is a bit different. They currently face the same security threats and the Ukraine war, in particular, unites them. Until the Ukraine war is resolved and the Russian threat eliminated over the longer term, the mutual necessities of London and Brussels will be driven by their geography.

Secondly, both the EU and UK share and prioritize democratic values. US Vice President J.D. Vance’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference in February demonstrated that the key defenders of normative power remain the EU and the UK. And this is another essential aspect that drives both parties to keep close ties (even amid the current drift away from America).

Thirdly, the Trump administration’s policies have contributed to the signing of this deal. The first foreign visit of Donald Trump’s second term being to the Gulf only further demonstrated that American interests now lie in the Middle East, rather than in Europe. While London and Brussels remain strategic partners, the US is prioritizing its own national interests, which are primarily economic.

Finally, the foreign policies of London largely follow the same path as European interests, such as in the case of the Middle East. Both are interested in a stable Syria, releasing pressure on migration flows and reducing the global terrorist threat. This deal shows that their objectives on terrorist threats remain similar.

I would not propose taking a negative stance on the deal, as it allows both parties to keep strategic working relations with the other, while the UK is remaining open to the rest of the world. When the global geopolitical situation changes and favors London’s interests in another way, British politics might change its course as a result. But today, geography, security and the current US administration’s priorities are the key factors that made it a necessity to conclude this so-called reset deal.

• Dr. Diana Galeeva is an academic visitor to Oxford University.