What’s behind Lammy’s desire to ‘reset’ relations with the EU?

This article was written by Noah Arazi, Policy Fellow 2024-2025, and originally appeared in ConservativeHome. The views in this article are the author’s own.

Whilst the new Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has spent the past few months boasting about his fresh global vision predicated on his newly branded outlook; “Progressive Realism,” his stance on the EU sounds dangerously familiar. It is no secret that Lammy, along with the vast majority of the Labour front bench, are staunch Europhiles.

After all, it was only a few years ago that Lammy was addressing crowds at the “People’s Vote” rally calling for a second EU referendum. Whilst Labour have smartly cloaked their “resetting” of relations with the EU in a strategic light, there are some very clear political undercurrents driving this reset.

Before delving into the shortcomings of this new foreign policy direction, it is important to make a distinction between a strategic and political relationship with the EU. A strategic relationship refers to the UK’s ability to work with the EU on mutual areas of interest.

Broadly speaking, the EU as a collective institution has a very similar defensive posture to the UK. For instance, the EU have been an essential force for good in the fight against Putin’s resurgent Russia. As an alliance, the EU have displayed unwavering support for the Ukrainians, whether it be through being the largest military training provider to the Ukrainian armed forces or the reservation of €500 million of the EU budget for the Act in Support of Ammunition Production (ASAP). Therefore, working with the EU on tackling issues such as Putin’s irredentist claims is mutually beneficial and serves a clear strategic purpose.

Contrastingly, the development of political ties with the EU can result in an undivided loyalty to the alliance.

The re-establishment of political ties will result in the UK adopting an inward-looking defensive posture which could conflict with pre-existing NATO defensive arrangements. There is no doubt that various EU leaders have sought to derive political capital from the alliance’s increasingly expansive (and independent) defence and security policy. Take French President, Emmanuel Macron, as an example. He has consistently utilised EU Strategic Autonomy, as a means of distancing himself from an American dominated defensive arrangement. When questioned over potential French military involvement in Taiwan, he ditched diplomatic niceties and stated “we are not vassals” of the Americans. A clear attempt to make news headlines which would satisfy his Europhilic fan base.

 Now in comes David Lammy.

The Foreign Secretary’s initial actions have certainly pleased Brussels. The stated purpose of his first international trip was supposedly to “reset relations” with various European allies. Furthermore, Lammy was adamant on driving home the importance of his UK-EU Security Pact describing it as a means of “enshrining a new geopolitical partnership.” Nothing is wrong with meeting with EU leaders or signing a new security pact with the EU. Both of these seem like fairly reasonable actions for a European Foreign Secretary predicated on strategic concerns. However, Lammy is using his “reset” of relations with the EU as a means of driving home a political agenda.

Another example is Lammy’s decision to accept EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borell’s invitation to take a seat at the table of the EU Foreign Affairs Council last month. As the only British politician to attend the Council since Brexit (with the exception of Liz Truss for an emergency session following the Russian invasion of Ukraine), the significance of this decision must not be overlooked. In addition to a “reset’ of relations with EU leaders, this engagement marks a “reset” of relations with EU institutions. As such, it is becoming increasingly clear that Lammy does not intend to work with the EU as promised. Rather, he intends on working within the EU.

There is no doubt that the flexibility of working outside of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy has been a major benefit of Brexit. It allowed for the UK to take rapid action in supporting Ukraine. Meanwhile, the difficulty of obtaining unanimous consensus amongst EU member states significantly impacted the speed of the EU’s response. Additionally, the UK’s position on Taiwan has remained close to the US. The recent UK-US Strategic Dialogue doubled down on the joint Transatlantic commitment to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. Compare this to the inconsistency of the EU position given that European leaders such as Macron have used Taiwan as a political football to distance themselves from the Americans.  Reaffiliation with the same institutions which bogged down British Foreign Policy in bureaucracy and petty politics for decades will be taking a backwards step.

Labour’s “reset” with the EU will also likely have a detrimental impact on Britain’s “special relationship” with the US. Since the end of the Cold War, the US have long been sceptical of European integration. After the signing of the St Malo Declaration in 1998, US Secretary of State, Madeline Albright warned of the “Three D’s” of European integration: decoupling, duplication and discrimination. The warning from across the pond has only intensified in recent years. The incoming Trump Presidency only worsens fears of a Transatlantic fissure. As the nation within Europe with the strongest Atlanticist inclination, we should be advocating for greater Transatlantic unity. Instead, Labour are too busy cosying up to the inward-looking politics of European Strategic Autonomy.

The UK’s future relationship with the EU must not be driven by a political impulse.

It must be a purely strategic relationship which seeks to stand up to the Russian threat. Furthermore, it should complement rather than undermine the pre-existing defensive relationships we already have with our NATO allies. The Foreign Secretary should not treat European integration as an inward-looking measure which seeks to realign us with the cliquey politics of the EU.

A pivot to Europe should not mean a pivot away from the US. More importantly, the UK’s future relationship with the EU must be driven by strategic concerns and not political inclinations.