The agreement between the UK and the EU announced today potentially represents the most significant change in their relationship since the UK’s exit from the single market and the customs union at the end of 2020. In part, today’s announcement fills what some felt was a gap in the Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA) of five years ago, that is, the conclusion of a defence and security pact. Its prioritisation in the ‘reset’ talks that have led to today’s agreement reflects the changed geostrategic environment occasioned by the foreign policy stance of the Trump administration in the US. However, in two areas the agreement holds out the prospect of a significant change in the TCA – more immediately though still to be agreed in detail, a veterinary agreement, and, in the longer term, a youth mobility (now ‘experience’) scheme.
One of the striking features of the ‘reset’ talks has been that, for the most part, they have been conducted away from the glaze of publicity. Although they were anticipated in Labour’s 2024 election manifesto, the government has largely preferred not to draw attention to their conduct. The government’s reticence has been consistent with the party’s tendency ever since the conclusion of the TCA to say relatively little about Brexit. But now that the covers have come off the talks, and the merits of what is now proposed are debated, how might the public react?
So far as concluding a veterinary agreement with the EU is concerned, at first glance all would seem to be set fair for securing public support is concerned. In January this year, BMG asked:
To what extent do you support or oppose an UK-EU veterinary agreement to remove paperwork required on food and drink exports between both?
As many as 51% said they would support such an agreement, while just 13% were opposed. Meanwhile, among those who voted Labour last year – a largely pro-EU group of voters – as many as 63% were supportive and only 10% were opposed.
Meanwhile, in a question that addressed the prospect of aligning the UK’s regulatory environment with that of the EU more broadly, YouGov asked last November:
Each of the following are potential EU conditions that the UK may need to agree to so that the UK can be granted special access to the European market. If the UK could regain special access to the European market, would you or would you not be willing to accept the following conditions?
Accepting European rules on food safety and product safety
In this instance 49% stated they would be willing to accept such an arrangement, while only 29% stated they were not. Among Labour voters the figures were 66% and 14% respectively.
There are, however, two features of these questions that we should note. First, the BMG question refers to ‘paperwork’ – never a popular process – while it does not spell out what a ‘veterinary agreement’ might entail. Meanwhile, the YouGov question suggests that ‘accepting’ EU rules might open up the perhaps enticing prospect of ‘special’ access.
In contrast, on a number of occasions, including most recently in January this year, Redfield & Wilton asked the following:
Which of the following would be better for Britain?
The UK follows EU laws and regulations for food sold in Britain, and food made in Britain to be sold abroad DOES NOT go through border checks upon arrival in the EU
OR
the UK follows its own laws and regulations for food sold in Britain, and food made in Britain to be sold abroad DOES go through border checks upon arrival in the EU
In this question, the potential quid pro quo involved in a veterinary agreement is spelt out for respondents. The price for the avoidance of border checks on food being exported from the UK to the EU is said to be the UK following EU food regulations rather simply adhering to its own.
When the issue is framed in this way, the balance of public opinion looks rather different. In January just 36% chose the first option, while 45% backed the second. Even among those who voted Labour in last year’s general election, opinion was evenly divided with 40% choosing either option.
Similarly, a number of polls have suggested that there is considerable public support for the idea of a youth mobility scheme. For example, last November YouGov asked:
To what extent, if at all, would you support or oppose negotiating a deal which would allow all 18-30-year-olds in the UK the chance to travel, live and work in European countries. In exchange, all 18-30-year-olds from the EU would have the same opportunities in the UK.
The company reported that 67% were in favour and just 19% opposed. Meanwhile, as many as 80% of Labour voters backed the idea while just 10% were against.
Equally, in January this year, BMG asked:
To what extent do you support or oppose the following policies?
A UK-EU Youth Mobility Scheme, allowing 18-30 year olds the opportunity to work and study freely for a set number of years in UK / EU countries.
Just 14% said they were opposed to such a scheme, while 57% were in favour. Labour voters backed the idea by as much as 71% to 8%.
Meanwhile, last August More in Common asked whether the following proposition would be a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ idea.
One idea is a ‘youth mobility scheme’ which would give 18-30 year olds from EU countries the right to live, work and study in the UK for four years, and would give 18-30 year old Britons the same rights to live, work and study in the EU for four years.
As many as 58% stated that it would be a good idea, while just 10% felt it would be bad. Among Labour voters the figures were 71% and 6% respectively.
Again, however, we should note the wording of these questions. Both YouGov’s and BMG’s question talk of ‘chance’ and opportunity’, while the More in Common question suggests that a youth mobility would give younger Britons a ‘right’. In short, the framing of the idea might be regarded as being rather positive.
And once again, also, a different picture emerges from a different approach that has been adopted on a number of occasions by Redfield & Wilton. They have asked the following:
Which of the following two options do you think would be better for Britain?
Any British citizen under age 35 can live and work in the EU with an automatically granted visa for up to two years AND any EU citizen under age 35 can live and work in Britain with an automatically granted visa for up to two years
OR
Any British citizen under age 35 has to meet certain requirements for a visa to live and work in the EU AND any EU citizen under age 35 has to meet certain requirements for a visa to live and work in Britain
Here a youth mobility scheme is presented as one that might give younger EU citizens an automatic ability to come to the UK for a couple of years, with a reciprocal position for younger British citizens. In short, it implies a potential limitation to UK’s ability to control who came to the UK under such a scheme. And in the most recent reading in January, just 34% backed the first option, while 48% preferred the second. Meanwhile, Labour voters were evenly divided, just marginally preferring the first option by 44% to 43%.
We are not concerned here about whether one approach to asking about these two subjects is ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’. Rather, what we learn from these diverse results is that people’s responses depend on how the two issues are framed. Most would seemingly like freer agricultural trade with the EU, but are seemingly less keen on the UK possibly losing its ability to make its own laws as a result. Giving young people the opportunity to spend a couple of years abroad sounds attractive – until the possibility is raised that the UK may have less control over who comes to the UK.
Who wins the battle for public opinion on the government’s reset could well therefore depend on who proves better able to determine how the issues at stake are framed in the public’s mind. But if the government is to win that battle, it will no longer be able to remain reticent about Brexit.
By John Curtice
John Curtice is Senior Research Fellow at NatCen and at 'UK in a Changing Europe', Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, and Chief Commentator on the What UK Thinks: EU website.