The May 2025 deal between the UK and the EU is a significant milestone in their post-Brexit relationship. It’s about making pragmatic adjustments, not rejoining a full stop. It’s a “new chapter” of cooperation based on shared global issues, and to address economic issues. The agreement facilitates trade, particularly with an agreement on food safety and a new agreement on security cooperation. It further seeks to enhance people’s connections. These reforms should reduce red tape, potentially reduce food prices, and make Europe safer. There are some hard sections, though.
Granting EU fishing rights to UK waters for a further 12 years is a sensitive issue. It has been attacked by some sections of the UK fishing industry. The agreement demonstrates that the UK is prepared to conform to EU regulations in some areas, striking a balance between independence and economic gains. This makes the relationship “business-like.” It does not entirely alter the current Brexit arrangement but provides a foundation for continued negotiations and collaboration. Everyone in both the UK and the EU is keen on closer relationships, particularly where it benefits all.
Resetting the Relationship
The UK officially exited the European Union on January 31, 2020. The move created profound “psychological scars” both in London and Brussels. The initial post-Brexit trade agreement, in January 2021, took away tariffs but imposed numerous customs checks and forms. This contributed to a 21% decline in UK food exports and a 7% decline in imports since the departure from the EU. The deal agreed in May 2025, done nearly a year since the election when the Labour Party came to power, was aimed at “repairing some of the damage caused by Brexit.”.
Under PM Keir Starmer, the Labour administration has sought to mend fences with Brussels. Labour’s promise at the last election was to “deepen ties with our European friends, neighbours and allies”. But they placed firm boundaries: no going back into the single market, customs union, or free movement of people. This diplomatic strategy addresses political sensitivities at home. Starmer referred to the new EU trade agreement as the third in a “hat-trick of trade deals,” after deals with the US and India. He described it as demonstrating “Britain is back on the world stage” and breaking away from an “island mentality”.
The agreement doesn’t alter the fundamental elements of the Brexit deal, such as rejoining the single market. This is a prudent political step by the Labour government. They desire to implement practical fixes that benefit the economy without reopening the divisive Brexit debate. The notion is “slow evolution, not revolution”, since the “psychological scars from Brexit” are too deep.
Major change to the EU would be politically dangerous. The Labour strategy is to demonstrate that they can deliver tangible gains under the current Brexit arrangements. This serves to manage expectations and sidestep internal party tensions. Thus, while certain trade issues are alleviated, the UK will probably remain on the periphery of the deepest EU integration in the foreseeable future. This involves a long-term strategy of gradual, small-scale changes and cooperation in individual sectors, not a large shift in the UK’s position regarding the EU.
Major Components of the New Agreement
The May 2025 agreement centers on a few key components of the UK-EU relationship.
Trade and Economic Enhancements
One of the biggest components of the new deal is the food safety accord, known as Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS). This is a significant move, with the EU agreeing to scrap the health screening of farm produce from the UK. This is a “lifeline” for small companies and will significantly cut checks on fresh food traveling between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Great Britain. In a bid to facilitate trade even earlier, the UK government had already ended border checks on EU imports of fruit and vegetables. This saves companies a great deal of time and money. This is expected to save the fresh produce industry roughly “700,000 consignments every year” and forego “£200 million” in expenses. The SPS agreement aims to establish a common UK-EU food safety area. This will save money, reduce the strain on food prices, and eliminate routine checks at the border for food imports and exports. This could result in cheaper food prices and greater variety for UK consumers.
For British exporters, this deal results in the UK “dynamically aligning” with EU regulation. This will have the UK replicate “nearly all its SPS rules on food production with the EU”. The UK can provide suggestions, but not a vote on future EU suggestions. This should significantly cut paperwork and border controls, enabling foods such as shellfish and processed meat to be exported from the UK to the EU once again.
The UK’s agreement to “dynamic alignment” of food safety regulations, while previously there were vows of complete independence, indicates a pragmatic turn. The obvious economic advantage of reduced trade barriers, cheaper food, and improved access to markets was a compelling reason to do so. Exports of food had declined by 21% post-Brexit, rendering access to markets a concern of significant concern. This economic imperative would appear to have resulted in the political accommodation. While other farmers are concerned with the “high price of taking on future EU regulations”, the government opted for economic gain. This is a precedent: other such deals could be made in other fields where easing trade tension is highly desirable. This could mean the UK moving incrementally towards EU standards in certain fields, even without technically rejoining. The European Court of Justice (CJEU) will be the ultimate body in cases of disagreement with these rules.
Apart from food safety, the deal is expected to ease trade by cutting paperwork and customs holdups. This will be through electronic documents, reduced health certificates, and wider trusted trader schemes. It also has provisions where UK and EU institutions will accept each other’s product certifications. This translates into no longer double testing, previously a large trade barrier. The agreement also permits professionals such as accountants, engineers, and medical staff to have their qualifications recognized in the EU and the UK. This is crucial for the UK services industry, which accounts for 49% of all British exports. This reform is easier to access the EU market without requiring UK businesses to establish offices in EU member states. It is particularly beneficial to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which struggled with cross-border services prior to this. Moreover, British steel exports are safeguarded from fresh EU tariffs and regulation, which will save the UK steel industry £25 million a year.
For green cooperation, the UK and EU will partially connect their Emissions Trading Systems (ETS). This implies British exports will not be subject to the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) levy. This saves UK producers around £800 million that would otherwise have ended up in the EU. This cooperation also benefits the energy security of the UK.
Fishing Rights: A Tough Compromise.
One of the most controversial aspects of the deal is the prolongation of the existing fishing agreement for a further 12 years, up to 2038. This maintains access for EU fishermen to UK waters. The UK government claims this agreement ensures “no increase in the amount of fish EU vessels can catch in British waters” and provides “stability and certainty” for the sector. The UK also claims to retain control of its waters and isn’t subject to the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. The additional fishing quota the UK received in the initial Brexit agreement (25% of EU quota entitlements, £175 million in 2025) remains unchanged.
Although reassured by the government, a lot of people in the British fishing industry are highly sceptical. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) labeled it a “surrender” and a “giveaway,” with the UK surrendering “the best card that we still had.”Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF) director Elspeth Macdonald described it as a “horror show for Scottish fishermen” and worse than the earlier Brexit deal. She accused Prime Minister Starmer of betraying the sector by granting 12 years’ access to EU vessels to meet other objectives. Meanwhile, Salmon Scotland, the industry body for farmed salmon exporters, supported the agreement. It stated that it would “reduce red tape and hasten the export of our quality Salmon to market,” eliminating expensive delays that had cost salmon businesses around £3 million annually since Brexit. To mitigate the political blow, the UK government will spend £360 million on the fishing sector. This will be spent on new technology, training, and assistance for coastal communities and seafood exports.
The 12-year extension of EU access to fishing was a major political concession.It led to robust criticism at home, but it was probably a calculated gamble to secure larger economic gains, particularly the significant food safety agreement. This demonstrates that fishing rights, although politically charged, form a tiny portion of the UK’s economy (0.03% of GDP). The robust negative response of the fishing industry, branding it a “surrender” or “horror show”, stands in sharp contrast to the government’s rhetoric of “stability and certainty”. The 12-year extension was “the key concession which may have led the EU to unlock negotiations on a core demand of the UK: an agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS)”. This implies that a niche economic sector was utilized to gain a far bigger economic agreement. The government’s motives, such as “stability and certainty” and the £360 million investment, are to minimize the political fallout. This implies that future UK-EU negotiations will still have intricate trade-offs. The various responses within the fishing industry itself, with Salmon Scotland positive and the NFFO negative, illustrate the diverse effects of such agreements
More Powerful Security and Defence Cooperation
One of the main reasons behind the new “cordial understanding” is the common perception that intense collaboration is essential for European defense, particularly due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s February 2022 invasion altered the security environment, and the UK and other NATO members rethought their defense strategy. The UK and EU emphatically assert their mutual responsibility for Europe’s security, noting their “vital interests in the peace, security and stability of Europe and beyond”. Their joint perspective transcends previous political divergence following Brexit.
One of the key elements of the deal was the signing of the EU-UK Security and Defence Partnership (SDP). This puts on paper the cooperation on most security matters. It entails collaborating on cybersecurity, hybrid threats, safeguarding critical infrastructure, and applying new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) in a responsible manner. The SDP establishes twice-yearly foreign and security policy talks between EU and UK officials, along with an annual high-level defense conference. A large potential benefit is that the UK arms sector could gain access to Security Action for Europe (SAFE), a €150 billion EU defense project fund. British firms can participate in joint ventures, but funding access remains uncertain and requires more negotiations.
The deal enhances law enforcement cooperation, combating terrorism, and serious organized crime. This includes closer collaboration with organizations such as Europol and improved information sharing, including facial photographs for the first time. The UK has formally joined the Permanent Structured Co-operation (PESCO) project on Military Mobility as a demonstration of its genuine commitment to defense integration. The EU and UK firmly stand with Ukraine, cooperating in formations such as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG) and the EU Military Assistance Mission (EUMAM). The UK’s Operation INTERFLEX has also played a critical role. These combined efforts have helped to train more than 120,000 Ukrainian troops.
Security and defense cooperation was the simplest and least politically charged area for cooperation. This is primarily because of the pressing need for Russia’s war in Ukraine. Both nations perceive similar threats beyond Brexit political divisions, so cooperation is a “necessity.”. Most sources refer to defense and security as a priority field, using the expression “low-hanging fruit” in most cases. The Ukraine war is cited as the principal reason again and again. This shared enemy compels a realistic convergence of interests beyond the earlier ideological divisions.
The UK, as well as the EU, is aware that “going it alone” is not possible today. The public is also concerned about defense in both the UK and the EU and is backing this cooperation. This closer security cooperation will most probably enhance NATO’s presence in Europe and may bring a more closely integrated European defense, even without the UK within the full EU framework. It assists the UK in maintaining its presence in Europe after Brexit, demonstrating that “the UK has left the EU, but it has not left Europe.”. But the vagueness of UK access to the €150 billion SAFE fund demonstrates that even apparently straightforward areas require diplomatic attention.
People-to-People Links and Travel
The deal also addresses individual travel and cultural exchange. British holidaymakers can once again use e-gates when visiting the EU. It is a huge psychological boost, indicating a closer relationship and bringing an end to long queues at borders. Also, the UK and EU agreed to negotiate a youth exchange scheme. This might enable young people to work and travel throughout Europe without restrictions again. The scheme would have time and number limits, the same as UK arrangements with nations such as Australia and New Zealand. These youth exchanges are hoped to help a generation “rediscover Europe and be European”. Hospitality and tourism trade associations universally embrace this plan, requesting that it be as flexible as possible. In addition to individuals, pet travel will also be simplified with “pet passports” for UK dogs and cats, eliminating the need for separate health certificates on every journey. The package also contains a mutual pledge to combat illegal migration, with proposals for solutions such as returns and mutual attempts to discourage English Channel crossings.
Political and Stakeholder Responses
The new deal has been met with varied responses from politicians and other stakeholders, reflecting the complicated dynamics of post-Brexit relations.
The UK Government’s Perspective
Prime Minister Keir Starmer labelled the deal a “landmark deal” and a “new partnership between an independent Britain and our allies in Europe”.It said it closed a “hat-trick of trade deals,” and sent a “clear message, sent around the world, that Britain is back in the world.”. The government emphasized the actual advantages of the deal: lower food bills, less red tape for companies, improved access to the valuable EU market, and an estimated £9 billion stimulation of the UK economy by 2040. Notably, the government reiterated that the deal adheres to its “red lines”: no going back to the single market, customs union, or free movement.
Opposition Criticism
The UK opposition severely criticized the agreement. Kemi Badenoch, a senior minister, branded the agreement “own goals” and a “surrender”, particularly in terms of fishing rights. She contended that “When Labour negotiates, Britain loses”. The Conservatives have explicitly stated they are opposed to any agreement that entails “rule-taking from the EU, dynamic alignment or CJEU jurisdiction”. They threatened that a future Conservative government “will not be bound by a bad Labour deal”. This indicates the deep and long-standing political cleavages within the UK over its relationship with the EU.
EU Member States’ Responses
In negotiations with the UK, the EU continually insisted that the UK needs to respect existing agreements. A December 2024 leaked EU document proposed that for the EU to accept UK proposals (such as on food safety and carbon trading), the UK would have to harmonize completely with EU laws, embrace the European Court of Justice (CJEU) jurisdiction, and contribute financially. While most EU countries supported closer cooperation on foreign policy, security, and defense, some, like France, initially hinted they might block the security pact unless it included EU demands on fishing and youth mobility. However, European Council President Antonio Costa later said that disagreements over fishing rights would not stop a UK-EU security pact. The EU broadly interprets this restart as evidence that post-Brexit Britain is not able to “go it alone” in the volatile security environment of today, so greater cooperation is a pragmatic requirement.
Impact on Northern Ireland
The Northern Ireland Assembly greeted the agreement as a “positive step forward,” easing issues for companies. Nevertheless, Sinn Féin, though noting a reduced number of checks would benefit the agri-food industry, noted the economic stimulus anticipated would only reclaim a “small fraction of the total cost of Brexit.” They continue to refer to Brexit as an “act of historic, diplomatic and economic self-harm.”. Reservations still exist regarding the broader implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland agriculture, particularly missed EU funding (Common Agricultural Policy – CAP) in contrast with the Republic of Ireland, and continued seasonal worker issues because of UK immigration policies. The Windsor Framework (February 2023) has already relaxed checks on goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the new food safety deal extends this further, minimizing friction.
Business Sector Reactions: Cautious Hope
Most British business leaders greeted the deal favorably. They regarded it as a “vital step towards restoring trade stability” and a much-needed “reset” in the UK-EU relationship. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) in particular welcomed the food safety rules for simplifying trade in perishable products. They called on the UK government to think more about joining EU environmental and product safety standards more closely to cut friction even further. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) captured the sentiment: “Businesses don’t require additional politics, they require progress. This agreement permits firms on both sides to breathe a sigh of relief”. Opportunities were highlighted in the defense sector (via joint ventures) and for companies obtaining clarity on carbon pricing, preventing double taxation. However, certain concerns still linger, particularly regarding “dynamic alignment” and how it would impact future regulatory freedom. The National Farmers’ Union (NFU) specifically cautioned against tying the country to future EU regulations where the UK could hardly have a voice.
Economic Effects and Industry Analysis
The economic effect of the new UK-EU deal is a central concern, with projections and impacts on various industries drawing a lot of attention.
Expected Economic Benefits
The British government forecasts that the new deal will boost the UK economy by almost £9 billion by 2040. This is forecasted to come through, making food more affordable, reducing bureaucracy for businesses, and increasing access to the valuable EU market. Yet independent commentators and opposition politicians caution that this gain will only regain a “small proportion of the total cost of Brexit,” which they have labelled an “act of historic, diplomatic and economic self-harm.”
British public opinion favors economic progress, with the majority of Britons (53%) expecting a deeper relationship with the EU to stimulate economic growth.
Impact on Key Industries
- Agrifood: The SPS (food safety) agreement is likely to significantly benefit the agriculture and food industry, making trade simpler and less expensive for plant and animal products. It will enable British products such as sausages and burgers to be sold in the EU once more, benefiting industries that experienced a 21% decline in export figures since Brexit. Salmon Scotland, for instance, celebrated the shorter delays and paperwork, which had been costing salmon export businesses around £3 million per year.
- Steel: Exports of British steel are now safeguarded against new EU regulations and tariffs, which cost the UK steel industry £25 million annually.
- Services: Recognition of professional qualifications between partners is an important step for the UK services sector, accounting for 49% of total British exports. This eliminates large obstacles, facilitating entry into the EU market without UK companies having to establish branches in EU countries.
- Defence: The Defence and Security Partnership provides huge opportunities for the UK defence sector with collaborative projects and potential access to the €150 billion EU defence fund (SAFE). It will be expected to sustain thousands of UK jobs and stimulate growth within the sector.
- Energy: The agreement’s vow to consider re-joining the EU internal energy market and deeper integration has the potential to drive down clean energy prices and better position the UK in the world. Also, carbon pricing alignment ensures British companies selling to Europe don’t pay carbon taxes twice.
UK-EU Trade Data
Although Brexit occurred, the European Union remains the UK’s biggest trade partner. With the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, there has been a fall of 21% in overall UK exports to the EU and a fall of 7% in imports. In March 2025, UK total exports amounted to $22.35 billion, while exports to the EU made up $18.16 billion, just a meagre 1.6% increase from February 2025. UK major exports to the EU consist of electrical machinery and equipment, which accounted for $14.39 billion in 2024. UK major imports from EU nations are nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery, electrical machinery, medicine, mineral fuels, plastics, and medical instruments.
Challenges and Future Steps
Despite political will and positive responses, implementing the May 2025 deal will be tricky. UK-EU relations will remain with negotiations and political shifts in the future.
Particular Obstacles
The new food safety (SPS) deal, although promising, requires concerted negotiations between the EU and the UK regarding food law harmonization. This will take until the end of 2025 before checks may be lifted. Companies will take time to prepare, and traders will still have to adhere to the UK’s Border Target Operating Model (BTOM) until the SPS agreement is fully implemented. Even though the deal promises to make customs simpler and cut paperwork, intricate regulatory divergence and rules of origin have long been large issues for UK companies exporting to the EU. These problems, while dealt with in theory, will require sensitive management during implementation. Additionally, those imports from outside the EU coming into the EU market via the UK need to comply with EU rules and standards, regardless of whether the product is made in the UK.
One of the most important areas still on the table is the precise terms of UK participation in the EU’s €150 billion SAFE defense fund. While British firms can participate in joint ventures, the deal is unclear on access to finance. There needs to be more negotiations to further develop this and prevent the UK from being treated as “just another third country”.Such imprecision is a lost opportunity, since having no concrete agreements on defense cooperation may undermine the security partnership’s military ambitions at a moment when the European defense industry needs to be bolstered in response to Russian aggression.
Roadmap for Future Talks
May 2025 will be regarded merely as the “first step” on a longer path, with additional talks necessary to firm up and expand the initial deals. The Security and Defence Partnership, for instance, uses the words 17 times that the UK and EU will “explore” ways to collaborate on certain issues, which means there are still many details to be determined. The establishment of regular high-level discussions, including six-monthly talks on foreign and security policy, is designed to facilitate ongoing cooperation.
Areas to be considered for potential deeper cooperation include:
- Full access to the SAFE fund: This is a primary objective for the UK defense sector.
- Youth Mobility: A scheme has been proposed, but its specifics, such as restrictions on numbers and duration, will require further negotiations.
- Energy Market Integration: The commitment to consider re-joining the EU’s internal energy market can result in deeper integration and advantages.
- Regulatory Alignment: Accepting dynamic alignment in food safety creates a precedent that might be tested in other sectors where there are economic gains over concerns for independence, but the UK government has maintained its “red lines” on the single market and customs union.
Public Opinion and Political Will
Public opinion within the UK is generally in favor of a closer relationship with Europe. A YouGov poll in May 2025 revealed that 62% of Britons believe that Brexit has been a failure, and 56% consider that it was a mistake to leave the EU. The majority (53%) would be in favor of Britain’s return to the EU, and 66% desire something closer than today, even many Leavers. This feeling extends to specific areas, with 56% believing closer ties with the EU would help Britain’s defense and security. Similarly, most (53%) think a closer relationship will boost economic growth.
In the EU, in the Spring 2025 Eurobarometer survey, 52% of Europeans have trust, a 2007 high. There is widespread concern (78%) regarding the EU’s defense and security within five years, and 81% are in favor of a common defense policy among members. This broad appeal for greater cooperation, particularly security, provides a good political motive for ongoing involvement with the UK.
But political will for further integration is a tightrope. The Labour government is “walking a tightrope”. They must appease their pro-European MPs without offending Brexiters and the opposition, who fear “rule-taking” from the EU. The “eerie silence around Brexit” before the election indicates a wish to depoliticise it, to press for working reforms rather than dramatic overhauls. The success of future negotiations will rely on sustained political will on both sides and the capacity to manage domestic political challenges as they pursue common gains.
Conclusions
The May 2025 agreement between the UK and the EU is a key moment in their post-Brexit relationship. It shows a clear move towards practical cooperation, not a full re-joining. This “slow evolution” is a careful political strategy by the Labour government. It aims to fix economic problems and improve shared security without restarting the divisive debates about fully re-aligning with the EU.
The most notable accomplishments of the deal are the substantial trade enhancements, particularly the agreement on comprehensive food safety (SPS). The UK’s embrace of “dynamic alignment” with EU food safety regulations, albeit distinct from earlier roles calling for full independence, indicates that actual economic advantages, such as reduced trade barriers, cheaper food, and improved market access, are now more valued over strict regulatory autonomy. This establishes a precedent for future collaboration in other areas, in which economic interest could create a gradual harmonization, even as the UK retains its “red lines” on the single market and customs union.
The 12-year extension of EU access to UK waters is the most politically challenging concession. Though energetically condemned by sections of the fishing industry, it appears to be a tactical sacrifice made to secure larger, economically more significant deals, particularly the SPS agreement. This illustrates the nuanced trade-offs in global negotiations, in which the political significance of certain matters can be employed to secure broader national objectives.
Significantly, more intensive security and defense collaboration has been an easy area for collaboration. This is largely because of the current global crisis with Russia’s persistent war in Ukraine. This common perception of threats brought with it a pragmatic convergence of strategic interests, overcoming the post-Brexit ideological differences. This collaboration enhances the overall security of Europe and enables the UK to maintain its influence on the continent.
Still, the precise details of UK participation in EU defense spending remain subject to further negotiations, evidence that even where things are a matter of mutual interest, there is still tedious, painstaking effort needed. Overall, the deal indicates the post-Brexit relationship is coming of age. It’s moving beyond the initial rupture and tensions towards a more “business-like” and co-operative stance. Though it does not drastically alter the current structure, it lays a solid foundation for continued negotiations and incremental levels of cooperation across various fields. Public demand in both the UK and the EU for closer relations, particularly in fields such as security and economic stability, lends support to continued efforts. The path to a united and strong European partnership has been initiated, demonstrating that though the UK left the EU, it certainly didn’t leave Europe.
