Parliament must have its say on the UK-EU reset

March 2025: European leaders at Lancaster House | Image by: Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street

4 min read4 hr

Today the UK and EU meet to discuss what has been billed as a reset in their relationship. The Foreign Affairs Committee, which I chair, is doing an inquiry into the UK-EU reset, and ahead of the summit we wrote to the Prime Minister with a series of questions based on what we had heard from witnesses.

Though some of our witnesses are sincerely encouraged by the government’s commitment to a more productive and cooler-headed partnership than has existed for some years, many of them complain that the government has failed to project a coherent approach or long-term vision for the UK-EU relationship.

Piecemeal leaks – such as recent briefings and counter-briefings surrounding a potential youth mobility scheme – have offered some of the very few insights into the government’s negotiating position. This precludes meaningful public engagement and parliamentary scrutiny, which are vital if the reset is to be a success.

I have been concerned that this incomplete picture means there are several important areas of our relationship with the EU which we do not even know if the government has raised. Chief among these is services.

I share the government’s preoccupation with economic growth, and I have been encouraged by its reported focus on removing trade barriers to that end. So, when our witnesses tell us that UK service exports are growing far faster than goods, and share with us research that suggests deep goods and services alignment with the EU could yield a further 2.2 per cent GDP growth, I want to know whether this is something the government is thinking seriously about.

There is also more I would like to hear on topics like mutual recognition of professional qualifications. And while we – rightly – hear plenty about travelling musicians, medical institutions have heard little about how the government will work with the EU to tackle the shortages of vital medications that have emerged since Brexit.

We will see shortly whether both sides have been able to put essential cross-continental defence above the squabbles of the last near-decade

Of those subjects we know will be on the agenda at the summit, I am closely watching the potential new security and defence partnership. European foreign policy will continue to be preoccupied by support for Ukraine for many months to come. As a major supporter of the Ukrainian war effort, an influential member of Nato and the leader of the Joint Expeditionary Force, the UK has an inarguably central role in European defence against an expansionist Russia.

It would be wrong for the EU to miss opportunities for defence co-operation in favour of penalising the UK for its decision to leave. We will see shortly whether both sides have been able to put essential cross-continental defence above the squabbles of the last near-decade. Early reports are promising.

Lastly, I am pleased to see that a youth mobility scheme looks a done deal. As an internationalist party of government, we ought to embrace something with such obvious benefits: both for young Brits given the opportunity to broaden their horizons and for the UK’s soft power (another focus of my committee). The affection for Britain with which young Europeans who spend a short period of time in the UK return to their home countries is to our great cultural and geopolitical advantage.

Though the idea heightened political blood pressure when the EU – not entirely helpfully – raised it during the general election campaign last year, I am confident that a majority of the Commons is now in favour. It is perfectly possible for it to be designed in a way that is compatible with the government’s wider ambition to reduce overall migration numbers. In my view, its eventual adoption is inevitable. It is right that the door is opened to it today.

The UK’s economic relationship with the EU has enormous ramifications for every part of the British economy. It is a matter of democratic principle that Parliament should have the opportunity to conduct meaningful scrutiny and oversight of it. This is something that my committee stands ready to do – but we cannot scrutinise leaks and briefings alone.

Furthermore, my personal view is that any international treaty should be dealt with as you would expect any modern democracy to: with a debate in Parliament before it is ratified.

Emily Thornberry is Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury and chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee