Relations between London and Brussels remain tense and complicated after Britain’s exit from the European Union. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is trying to “reset” the dialogue and bring the UK back into selected EU programs. But before talks can begin, member states must first agree on a common position—and that is where serious divisions have emerged.
How to deal with post-Brexit Britain was the question preoccupying EU diplomats on Tuesday evening, November 11. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer seeks to “restart” relations with the bloc and begin negotiations as soon as possible. But before that can happen, EU countries must settle on a unified stance.
Ambassadors from the 27 member states tried to reach one at a high-level meeting in Brussels on Tuesday, following an unproductive attempt the previous Friday.
Yet a second day of talks ended without progress: the countries remained deadlocked and agreed to resume discussions on Wednesday. The main sticking point concerns Britain’s contributions to EU budgetary funds. All participants support the idea that London should pay its share, but some want to proceed more cautiously.
EU Members Divided Over How Quickly Britain Should Pay for Access to the Single Market
The prevailing view—shared by about a dozen EU countries, including France—is that the UK should make “immediate” or rapid payments in exchange for access to the single market, said one European official familiar with the talks, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Starmer is seeking to bring the UK back into the EU’s internal electricity market and to negotiate a separate agreement that would grant similar access for agricultural and food products. But that access will likely come at a cost.
The size and structure of that payment will be subject to negotiations. Countries including Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, and Luxembourg advocate a more cautious approach. They note that the deal reached at the London Brexit summit in May did not include mandatory British contributions to the EU’s cohesion funds.
“We reached an agreement in May—that should be the basis of our talks,” said another EU diplomat, also speaking on condition of anonymity. “We should not return in November and try to add cohesion fund contributions that were never agreed, even if the idea itself seems reasonable… We have to preserve our relationship with the United Kingdom.”
The diplomat summed up the disagreement: “We need to tell the European Commission either that the UK must pay—or that we should at least explore whether it could pay.”
London Demands a “Fair Price for Quality” and Rejects the EU’s Defense Program Offer
Budget contributions to the EU remain politically sensitive in Westminster and were one of the main arguments used by Brexit supporters, who loudly objected to the scale of funds sent to Brussels.
While the UK is willing to pay for participation in EU programs, London insists on a “price-to-quality ratio.” Talks over the country’s return to the Horizon research program were previously delayed due to disputes over participation costs. And this week, according to Bloomberg, Starmer’s government rejected the EU’s initial demand of €6.75 billion for access to the bloc’s defense program SAFE.
Time, however, is running short. The mandates under discussion in Brussels cover both the proposed agreement on agriculture and food, and a potential linkage between the UK and EU carbon trading systems. London wants the first deal in place by 2027 so that British consumers can see tangible benefits before the next election. The second is crucial to prevent the introduction of new EU border taxes that could hit UK businesses as early as next year.
For now, Starmer’s “reset” remains largely a series of goodwill statements. Turning them into binding legal agreements will be the real test.