From fishing to Erasmus: what the UK's deal with the EU will mean
Monday's deal between the UK and the EU has been almost a year in the making but it is long on hope and short on concrete changes that will happen immediately.
It is being billed by Keir Starmer as a hat-trick after his India and US deals, and a 'new chapter' in the relations between the UK and the EU by the European Council president, António Costa.
In reality, the deal will mean months and possibly a year of negotiations, paving the way for many things, including the return of cheese and sausage exports for small businesses, the prospect of Erasmus study for British students, and new police cooperation to combat drugs. Here are its main provisions and their implications:
This is possibly the biggest reset in the relationship and will draw accusations that the UK is once again becoming a 'rule-taker' from the EU, with the Conservatives already arguing the deal is a 'surrender'.
Under the deal, both sides have agreed to remove the need for health and veterinary certification, known as sanitary and phytosanitary checks (SPS), on exports of farm products ranging from fresh meat and dairy products to vegetables, timber, wool and leather,
At a stroke it will mean small scale cheese and sausage makers will once again be able to sell into the EU without health certification, something that killed off many small businesses including wool-sellers in Devon and cheese-makers in Yorkshire.
It will also be a big win for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, reducing the checks on fresh food going from GB into NI, and will allow Irish beef and cheese-sellers to export to the UK once again without veterinary certification.
Nevertheless, the UK will remain outside the customs union, and Brexit customs declarations will remain. Nor does there seem to be any movement on dual regulation on medicines, veterinary medicines or chemicals, such as paint or household cleaning products.
The communique says: 'The SPS agreement should cover sanitary, phytosanitary, food safety and general consumer protection rules applicable to the production, distribution and consumption of agrifood products, the regulation of live animals and pesticides, the rules on organics as well as marketing standards applicable to certain sectors or products.'
The EU and UK have agreed to roll over the existing fishing deal for another 12 years, until 2038, providing access to UK waters for EU fishers.
But crucially, the food and drinks deal means that the fish caught in British waters can now be processed and sold into the EU without veterinary checks, eliminating huge costs created by Brexit.
It also opens the door for shellfish – from crabs and mussels, to shrimp and shrimp products – to be sold into the EU, allowing fish to be caught in the EU, for example in the Irish sea, and processed in Great Britain.
These SPS easements are potentially a big bounce for exporters, given that 70% of seafood caught in the UK is sold in EU shops and restaurants.
The deal to allow young people from both the UK and the EU member states visit or work in each other's countries for a limited period of time goes further than expected.
In a big win for the EU, it includes a commitment to look at rejoining the Erasmus+ university and vocational exchange programme, something Labour had objected to, largely on the grounds of cost as more EU students tended to go to British universities than Britons went to EU institutions, opening a financial burden to impoverished universities.
The communique says: 'The specific terms of this association, including mutually agreed financial terms, should be determined as part of that process in order to ensure a fair balance as regards the contributions of and benefits to the United Kingdom.'
As expected the youth mobility scheme will be named the 'youth experience' scheme to launder some of the toxicity accumulated by the four-year YMS proposed by the European Commission as far back as April 2024.
Details have yet to be agreed, but as part of the 'common understanding', both sides will work towards a scheme that will allow work, study, au pairing, volunteering or travelling for a limited period under a visa programme.
The time limit has not been specified but it is expected to be at least a year, and could be more, depending upon how much the UK can stomach any pushback. Nevertheless Brexiters, including Steve Baker, have said it is a good thing and their objections focus on food health checks rather than youth exchanges.
Already in lock-step in relation to the big issues including Nato, Ukraine and the need for Europe to decrease its military reliance on the US, the deal paves the way to further strengthen their partnership.
The main feature is UK access to a €150bn (£126bn) new EU rearmament financing instrument, known as Safe, which is just about to be agreed by member states.
According to the communique it will 'help the EU and the UK boost support for Ukraine' and efforts on peace-building, crisis management, countering cyber-attacks and other hybrid attacks including threats to subsea cables.
The UK lost its access to a clutch of Europol databases after leaving the EU.
Today, in what the UK is promoting as a sizeable win, the Home Office will once again get access to DNA and criminal records as well as fingerprints and access to vehicle registrations and stolen goods.
They will also explore extending the exchange of data to facial images.
There is no specific mention of the regulation of medicines, which Brexit severely disrupted, causing the establishment of a dual regulatory body in the UK and the loss of the European Medicines Agency to Amsterdam.
Nevertheless, there does seem to be scope for cooperation on the development of drugs and drug addiction.
The two sides will deepen cooperation on migration with the mutual sharing of information.
This has been on the cards for more than two years, allowing British Border Force to get real-time information from authorities in receiving countries such as Italy, Greece, the Balkans and the Canary Islands in Spain.
They will work together in trying to deal with the small boats crossing the Channel and the UK will get 'enhanced cooperation with Europol and its European migrant smuggling centre'.
Despite the protests from Elton John and others, there is still no light at the end of the tunnel for musicians and performers who can only gig in the EU under specific visa arrangements.
Both sides, however, have agreed to 'continue their efforts to support travel and cultural exchange'.
While this has been billed as a big win for the UK, on closer scrutiny nothing is imminent and any access to e-gates in airports for British travellers is unlikely before 2026.
Under the deal there are hopes that there will be a breakthrough to allow British citizens to go through e-gates at European airports.
Currently, some countries allow this, including Portugal and some cities in Spain and France. But it looks like the use of e-gates for British citizens into EU member states will not happen until 2026 when the EU brings in its own version of the UK's electronic travel authorisation, which will automatically record moves in and out of the EU for all visitors.
Both sides have agreed to work towards linking the emissions trading systems of the EU and the UK.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump doubles tariffs on steel and aluminum, raising ire of Canada, Mexico
President Trump signed an order Tuesday doubling tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from 25% to 50% for al trading partners except the U.S. — drawing swift criticism from officials in neighboring Canada and Mexico. Why it matters: Trump's order said the increased tariffs that took effect early Wednesday "will more effectively counter" countries that "offload low-priced, excess steel and aluminum" in the U.S., but economic officials have said such levies would lead to higher consumer prices and inflation. A European Commission official said after Trump announced the metal tariffs plan at a U.S. Steel plant in Pennsylvania on Friday that the president's decision "adds further uncertainty to the global economy and increases costs for consumers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic." Details: Trump says in the order that the previously imposed steel and aluminum tariffs had helped "provide critical price support" in the U.S. However, "they have not yet enabled these industries to develop and maintain the rates of capacity production utilization that are necessary for the industries' sustained health and for projected national defense needs," he said. "I have determined that increasing the previously imposed tariffs will provide greater support to these industries and reduce or eliminate the national security threat posed by imports of steel and aluminum articles and their derivative articles." Yes, but: Steel and aluminum imports from the U.K. will remain at 25% until at least July 9 due to the framework for a sweeping new trade pact that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Trump signed last month. State of play: The U.K. is not a leading exporter of the metals to the U.S., but Reuters notes that Canada exports the most steel by shipment volumes to the U.S. followed by Mexico. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's office said in a Tuesday media statement that his government was "engaged in intensive and live negotiations" for the removal of the tariffs, which it described as "unlawful and unjustified." Mexican Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard said during a Tuesday event that he'd seek an exemption for the country from the tariffs that he called "not fair" and "unsustainable," per multiple reports. The EC official said the commission is was "finalizing consultations on expanded countermeasures" and if no resolution was reached "both existing and additional EU measures will automatically take effect" on July 14 or earlier, "if circumstances require." Flashback: Canada and Mexico were exempted from tariffs Trump imposed on the metals for trading partners during his first term. What they're saying: Kevin Dempsey, president of industry group American Iron and Steel Institute, in a statement welcomed Trump's tariffs action. "Led by China, global steel overcapacity and production continues to grow, even as overall global steel demand is being impacted by the sharp downturn in the Chinese construction sector," he said. "Given these challenging international conditions that show no signs of improvement, this tariff action will help prevent new surges in imports that would injure American steel producers and their workers." The other side: Robert Budway, president of industry group the Can Manufacturers Institute, in a statement said the tariffs hike would "further increase the cost of canned goods" at grocery stores. "This cost is levied upon millions of American families relying on canned foods picked and packed by U.S. farmers, food producers, and can makers," he added.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
New US tariffs on steel and aluminium to come into force
US import tariffs on steel and aluminium are set to be doubled from 0401 GMT Wednesday morning, following the announcement by US President Donald Trump. The tariff rate is set to rise from 25 to 50% of the value of the goods as Trump seeks to correct alleged trade imbalances and strengthen domestic industry in the United States. The measure is likely to make it more difficult to import the products in question – and lead to higher prices. In 2024, the US was the world's largest steel importer after the European Union. According to the US government, the most important countries of origin are Canada, Brazil and Mexico. Germany is also among the 10 largest exporters to the US. According to the German Steel Industry Association, the US is the most important sales market for the European steel industry. The United States sources aluminium primarily from Canada, the United Arab Emirates, China and South Korea. Trump has already announced, threatened or implemented numerous other tariffs with the stated aim of securing better trade agreements. It is still unclear how the EU will respond to the latest measure. The European Commission sharply criticized the US president's announcement at the weekend and threatened a response before the summer. However, according to the latest information, talks have continued and have been described as "very constructive." Another meeting between EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is planned for Wednesday in Paris. If Trump sticks to his decision, the EU could impose counter-tariffs at short notice.
Business of Fashion
an hour ago
- Business of Fashion
Dear Fashion CEOs, Stop Undermining Climate Action
We have reached a pivotal moment in the fashion industry's understanding of what true climate leadership means. Leadership was once defined by voluntary corporate commitments — a new sustainability pledge or climate goal. But these voluntary efforts have done little to move the needle, rarely graduating beyond pilot programmes, and often amounting to little more than greenwashed marketing. Short-term self-interest and a market that rewards quarterly growth have driven many players to underinvest or stall action. The result is collective stagnation. For the last few years, the belief among climate advocates and progressive executives has been that regulators would step into this void and drive momentum in the movement. Now that is on shakier ground. In the US, the Trump administration is dismantling environmental programmes, even as individual states forge ahead with their own regulations. In the EU, which has led the way on green legislation, concerns about competitiveness are threatening to erode policies that have already been formed. In a period of economic and political uncertainty, businesses are stepping back, greenhushing and deprioritising climate programmes. It is clear change won't come without political support. Real climate leadership from brands means recognising this, speaking out and calling for regulatory change. Instead, many trade groups — including those that represent brands with publicly progressive climate policies — are actively lobbying to undermine tougher environmental regulations, leaning into the political narrative that stiffer oversight is bad for business. Brands that are already doing the work know this is not true. Smart regulation can be a way to level a playing field that is currently stacked against companies that operate more responsibly, while also incentivising and accelerating change. But it won't happen if companies and their lobbyists don't step up to loudly and boldly declare their support for the regulatory change that will enable more meaningful action. As the industry convenes this week at the Global Fashion Agenda's annual sustainability summit in Copenhagen, it's an opportunity for leaders to move beyond the climate blah blah and chart a path forward. The issue is increasingly urgent. In the last six months alone, we've witnessed climate impacts that make inadequate action indefensible: historic wildfires in California, temperatures reaching 48°C in India and Pakistan, and a glacier collapse wiping out a Swiss village. The stakes are not theoretical. I saw the corporate doublespeak firsthand while testifying in Sacramento, California in support of the Fashion Act, a bill that aims to address the climate and chemical footprint of the industry. Alongside me was a persuasive college student; in opposition were business lobbies the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Retailers Association and the American Apparel and Footwear Association. Their argument? That requiring companies to set and meet absolute emission reduction targets would mean increased costs for consumers, even though companies like Gap, VF, and Nike have already made voluntary commitments to such targets. We brought data from McKinsey showing that industry-wide decarbonisation, once co-ordinated, is not only feasible but affordable. The Committee listened, the bill progressed, though it must still pass through several other stages of approval by January in order to make it into law. In New York, lawmakers have been working on a similar legislative proposal since 2022. This is why brands who say they favour a greener industry need to step up. The Fashion Act is gaining traction in California. But to move it across the finish line and into law, we need industry voices to be present in the room and use their platforms to publicly support it. That's why New Standard Institute, the industry think tank I run, has launched an advocacy arm — to enable us to meet anti-regulation lobbying with equal force. This is a model not just for the Fashion Act, but for future legislation that sets smart incentives — both sticks and carrots — aligned with the sustainability commitments many brands already claim. To the companies that have signed on to support the bill, thank you. In the months ahead, we invite more of you to move beyond pledges and pilot programs. We also call on current supporters to step up their engagement: be public, be vocal, and advocate clearly for the Fashion Act. Join us in supporting infrastructure that can match lobbying power with lobbying power. Show legislators that industry — the forward-looking, innovation-driven side of it — is ready to lead. Navigating the turbulence of tariffs and shifting global standards is a challenge. But leadership isn't about waiting for clarity. It's about showing up in the storm. Let's lead. Maxine Bédat is the founder and director of fashion think tank New Standard Institute. She has helped spearhead bills focused on regulating fashion's environmental impact in California and New York. The views expressed in Op-Ed pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Business of Fashion. How to submit an Op-Ed: The Business of Fashion accepts opinion articles on a wide range of topics. The suggested length is 700-1000 words, but submissions of any length within reason will be considered. All submissions must be original and exclusive to BoF. Submissions may be sent to opinion@ Please include 'Op-Ed' in the subject line and be sure to substantiate all assertions. Given the volume of submissions we receive, we regret that we are unable to respond in the event that an article is not selected for publication.
