EU-Britain agree on trade deal
The European Union and Britain reached a tentative agreement on defence and security, fisheries and youth mobility ahead of a EU-UK summit on Monday, paving the way for British firms to participate in large EU defence contracts, EU officials said.
Representatives of EU governments in Brussels received a text of a Common Understanding between Britain and the EU, and the document is now being approved by all 27 EU governments, the officials said.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa will meet later on Monday in London.
"There is an agreement ... on the different texts and parallel aspects of the EU-UK Summit," one EU diplomat said.
"From my understanding, all member states seem to be happy with what's put on the table as the summit is about to start. There is now an ongoing written procedure to have the formal agreement of all member states, but it shouldn't cause any problem," the diplomat said.
Britain is poised to agree the most significant reset of ties with the European Union since Brexit on Monday, seeking closer collaboration on trade and defence to help grow the economy and boost security on the continent.
"With the positive signs coming from the negotiators in London in the last days and hours, the scene is now all set for a very successful and constructive reset of the relationship, that both the EU and UK will benefit from," the diplomat said.
The two sides were also looking at deals allowing British travellers to use e-gates at European airports.
Talks are continuing on a youth mobility scheme to allow people aged 18-30 in the UK and the EU to move freely between countries for a limited period of time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Muscat Daily
2 hours ago
- Muscat Daily
Italy: Low turnout sinks citizenship, labour referendums
Rome, Italy – Italian citizenship and labour reform referendums look likely to fail due to low voter turnout. As two-day voting wound down in Europe's fourth-largest economy only about 30% of Italy's 51mn eligible voters had turned out to cast ballots in five referendums championed by centre-left opposition groups as well as the country's labour unions. Referendums require 50% plus one voter participation to be legally binding in Italy. The result is seen as a major victory for Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who vehemently opposed the measures. Meloni arrived at a Rome polling station on Sunday – when turnout was 22% – to declare that she would not cast a vote. Meloni then once-again encouraged her supporters to likewise boycott the ballot. The referendums Four of the referendums centred on workplace protections including better protections against firing, increased severance pay, unemployment benefits, the end of fixed-term contracts and better workplace accident compensation. A fifth referendum addressed whether voters wanted to ease citizenship laws in the country, allowing non-EU immigrants to apply for Italian passports after five rather than the current 10 years. At the moment, the rule would apply to roughly 2.5mn non-EU immigrants. Arguments for easing citizenship requirements were driven by the demographic fact of Italy's dwindling birth rates and calls for better integrating foreign workers in an effort to boost the country's economy. Data compiled by the polling organisation YouTrend said voter turnout was higher in the country's industrialised north than the agricultural south, as well in cities and in areas where left-leaning parties preformed best in Italy's most recent general and EU elections. 'The opposition wanted to turn this into a referendum on the Meloni government,' said Cabinet undersecretary and Meloni ally Giovanbattista Fazzolari. 'The response is very clear: The government emerges from this stronger and the opposition weaker.' Speaking of the vote's failure, YouTrend's Lorenzo Pregliasco said: 'Whether just above 30% or just below, this is a low figure… below the expectations and targets set by the promoters.' DW
Observer
19 hours ago
- Observer
The EU can play it cool with Trump's trade threats
Other governments have so far taken three main approaches to dealing with Donald Trump's trade threats. China hit back hard at the US president's tariffs and got him to back down partly. Canada also retaliated and avoided some of the pain Trump inflicted on other countries. Meanwhile, Britain cut a quick deal that favoured the United States. None of these is a model for the European Union. The 27-member group is not China. Though its bilateral goods trade with the United States last year was worth 70% more than between the US and the People's Republic, the EU is not an autocracy that can outpunch Trump. If it antagonises the US president, he might up the stakes by pulling the rug from under Ukraine and undermining the EU's defences. American hard power gives it what geopolitical strategists call 'escalation dominance'. The EU is not Canada either. Ottawa was able to hang tough because its people were infuriated that Trump was trying to blackmail Canada into becoming part of the United States. While anti-Trump sentiment is high in the EU, politicians who are sympathetic to him, such as Poland's new president, can still get elected. On the other hand, the EU is not the United Kingdom. Both are at risk from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But the EU trades seven times more goods with the United States than Britain does - so Washington has more to lose if economic relations break down. There is another way for the EU to handle Trump's threats: play it cool. That is more or less what the bloc is doing. It involves neither escalating the conflict nor accepting a bad deal. It means being open to a good agreement if the US lowers its demands, but willing to play the long game if it does not. One reason to buy time is to help Kyiv. The longer the EU has to prepare its own support package for Ukraine, which should include getting it a lot of cash, the less the damage if Trump ultimately cuts off all US aid to the country. The president's own vulnerabilities may also increase over time. Just look at the spectacular end of his alliance with Tesla boss Elon Musk. The fragile US trade truce with China may break down causing more financial turmoil, making Trump less keen to pick a fight with the EU. If the Supreme Court stops him using emergency powers to impose tariffs, his negotiating position will be weaker. And tariffs could hurt the US more than its supposed victims, by pushing up inflation and crimping growth. A QUICK DEAL? Trump has zig-zagged in his trade threats and actions against the EU. The current state of play is that there are 50% tariffs on US imports of steel and aluminium from the bloc, a 25% tariff on cars and 10% so-called reciprocal tariffs on most other goods. And so they're trying to be the first and the best to get there, which is why everybody's throwing so much money at it without any clear sense of, you know, The US president has threatened to jack up these reciprocal tariffs to 50% if there is no deal by July 9. He is also looking at more 'sectoral tariffs', including on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. While the EU has complained to the World Trade Organization (WTO), it has delayed its own retaliation. Its negotiators accept that they are unlikely to overturn the reciprocal tariffs, the Financial Times has reported. The bloc still aims to avoid the sectoral ones. Those on cars and any on pharmaceuticals would hurt it the most. It has dangled the possibility of buying more US equipment and natural gas to get a deal. An agreement on those lines could be good for the EU. It needs to beef up its defences and eliminate its purchases of Russian gas. While it would be best to have its own arms and energy supplies, buying more from the US makes sense as an interim measure. An important nuance, though, is that the EU should reserve the right to take action against the reciprocal tariffs after the WTO issues its verdict, says Ignacio Garcia Bercero, a former senior EU trade official. Such a pact would involve quite a climbdown by Trump. True, arms and gas purchases would narrow the US goods deficit with the EU, which was $236 billion last year. But his administration has a host of other complaints including the bloc's value-added tax and food safety standards as well the digital taxes that some of its members impose on tech giants. It is hard to see the bloc agreeing anything in those areas, says Simon Evenett, professor of geopolitics and strategy at IMD. BACK TO WAR? Although the US side described last week's trade talks with the EU as 'very constructive', discussions could easily break down. The question then is how the bloc would react if Trump imposed higher reciprocal tariffs. The EU has so far imposed no countermeasures. Though it has agreed to tax 21 billion euros of US imports in response to the steel and aluminium tariffs, it has delayed these until July 14 to try to get a deal. The European Commission, its executive arm, is also consulting on taxing a further 95 billion euros of US imports in response to the car tariffs and the reciprocal ones. But added together, these tit-for-tat measures would be equivalent to only a third of the 379 billion euros of EU imports subject to Trump's tariffs. Some analysts think the bloc needs to be tougher. One idea is to crack down on American services, where the US had a 109 billion euro surplus with the EU in 2023. Another is to activate its 'anti-coercion instrument ', which would allow retaliation against US companies operating in the bloc. Yet another is to threaten to ban exports of critical goods, such as the lithographic equipment necessary to make semiconductors. Extreme events may require extreme responses. But for now, the EU should keep its cool. It should not kid itself that it is stronger or more united than it is. It should remember that Trump may get weaker with time. And it should never forget Ukraine. — Reuters Hugo Dixon The writer is Commentator-at-Large for Reuters. He was the founding chair and editor-in-chief of Breakingviews.
Observer
19 hours ago
- Observer
Rebuild aid consensus
In 2015, the United Kingdom's then-prime minister, David Cameron, stood before the United Nations General Assembly and challenged other donor countries to follow the UK's lead and back the newly-minted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for eradicating poverty with their aid money. 'We haven't just achieved the UN's 0.7 per cent [aid-to-GNI spending] target, we've enshrined it in law,' he declared. That was then. As heir to an extraordinary bipartisan consensus forged under the post-1997 Labour government, Cameron's Conservative government had established Britain as the most generous aid donor in the G7, and one of just four countries to meet the 0.7 per cent aid target. Now, a Labour government has torn up the remnants of that consensus, joined a global attack on aid, and set a course that will leave the UK among the world's least generous countries. The fact that a UK government led by the Labour Party, with its long tradition of internationalism and solidarity, has all but abandoned its leadership role on an issue encoded in its DNA illustrates the political forces shaping a new world order, notably US President Donald Trump's view of international cooperation as a zero-sum game played by losers. But it also challenges development advocates in the UK to focus on strategies aimed at minimising harm and rebuilding the case for aid. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the decision to cut foreign aid and channel the savings to an expanded defence budget ahead of a meeting with Trump. The aid budget is set to fall from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent of Gross Nation Income – the lowest level since the late 1990s. After removing the roughly one-quarter of the official development assistance spent on refugees in the UK, Britain will slip from ninth to 22nd in a ranking of countries' Overseas Development Assistance as a share of GNI. While there has been opposition to the aid cuts, a new consensus has taken root. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch applauded the decision to convert ODA into defence spending. The far-right Reform UK party's election manifesto called for the aid budget to be halved. When Jenny Chapman, Britain's development minister, delivered ODA's death warrant, she told a parliamentary committee in May that 'the days of viewing the UK government as a global charity are over.' Some two-thirds of Britons, including most Labour supporters, support increased defence spending at the expense of overseas aid. The UK is hardly alone. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which accounted for more than 40 per cent of all humanitarian aid in 2024, has been dismantled. In Germany, the world's second-largest donor, Chancellor Friedrich Merz's new government will reduce an already-diminished aid budget. France is set to slash ODA by 40 per cent, while the recently collapsed right-wing government in the Netherlands, a longstanding member of the 0.7 per cent club, has decreased aid spending by more than two-thirds. The human toll of the cuts is already starting to emerge. The demolition of USAID has left acutely malnourished children without food, HIV/AIDS patients without antiretroviral drugs, and clinics unable to treat deadly diseases like childhood malaria. According to a recent study, Trump's suspension of aid could result in 14 million additional deaths, including 4.5 million children under five, by 2030. Cuts by the UK and other donors will inevitably add to these human costs. An already chronically under-financed humanitarian aid system now confronting famine threats and food emergencies from Sudan to Gaza and the Sahel has been pushed to the brink of collapse: less than 10 per cent of the 2025 UN appeal is funded. The political currents fuelling the attack on aid vary across countries. In the US, nihilistic anti-multilateralism has been a driving force. In Europe, fiscal pressures have interacted with right-wing populist narratives linking aid to migration, pressure on public services, waste, and corruption. Starmer now cites Russian security threats to justify deeper cuts. So, what can be done to rebuild an aid consensus? The first priority is to minimise harm. Maintaining the UK's £1.9 billion ($2.6 billion) commitment to the World Bank's International Development Association is critical because every dollar contributed can leverage $3-4 of financial support for the poorest countries. The UK could also make the most of a shrinking aid budget by channelling more humanitarian aid through local actors, rather than bureaucratic UN agencies. Still, tough choices must be made. There is a strong argument to protect spending on life-saving programmes, such as child nutrition, vaccinations, and HIV/AIDS, and for minimising cuts in areas where the UK is a global frontrunner, like girls' education and social protection. Even with a diminished aid budget, the UK could exercise greater leadership. With debt-service costs now crowding out spending on essential services in many low-income countries, Starmer's government could demand comprehensive debt relief at this month's UN International Conference on Financing for Development. Ultimately though, the case for aid must be fought and won in a public square increasingly dominated by right-wing populists. Political leaders in the UK and across the West need to communicate the hard truth that global challenges like climate change, war, and poverty require international cooperation. And they need to tap into the deep reservoirs of generosity, solidarity, and moral concern that define public sentiment even in the midst of our troubled times. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025. Kevin Watkins The author, a former CEO of Save the Children UK, is a visiting professor at the Firoz Lalji Institute for Africa at the London School of Economics.
