Can Britain Rebuild Trust With Europe Without Fully Honouring the Withdrawal Agreement?
As Prime Minister Keir Starmer seeks a closer relationship with the European Union on defence, migration, energy and trade, a difficult question continues to shadow Britain’s post-Brexit diplomacy: can the UK persuade Europe that it is a reliable partner if there are still disputes over how the Withdrawal Agreement is being implemented?
The Withdrawal Agreement was not simply a political declaration. It was a legally binding international treaty between the UK and the European Union. One of its most important sections concerned the rights of EU citizens living in Britain and British citizens living across Europe. More than 5 million EU citizens and their family members in the UK were meant to retain broadly the same rights to live, work and study as they had before Brexit.
The failure of the UK authorities and the European Union institutions to directly contact many EEA citizens and EU family members about the need to apply under the EU Settlement Scheme is now raising fresh questions about the transparency and fairness of the process. Thousands of people who had lawfully lived, worked and paid taxes in the UK for years have argued that they were never individually informed that failing to apply could place their immigration status, employment rights and access to services at risk. Critics say the burden was placed almost entirely on individuals to discover the rules themselves, despite the fact that government departments already held extensive records on many affected residents through tax, healthcare and social security systems.
Under the agreement, EU citizens and their family members who were lawfully resident in Britain before the end of 2020 are protected. They are entitled to continue residing in the UK and, after five years of residence, acquire permanent rights. The agreement also protects family members joining later under certain conditions. Importantly, the rights under the agreement can be relied upon directly in UK courts.
However, the operation of the EU Settlement Scheme has remained controversial. Campaigners and some lawyers argue that people with pre-settled status still face uncertainty, particularly where automatic conversion to settled status has not happened quickly enough or where lengthy absences from the UK create the risk of losing rights. Recent reports show that the Home Office has started more actively reviewing whether pre-settled status holders continue to meet the conditions to remain in Britain.
There is also frustration among some EU citizens that automatic conversion from pre-settled to settled status has not been fully implemented in practice. Although the Home Office has extended pre-settled status automatically in many cases, many people still report delays or uncertainty over whether they will be upgraded without having to submit a fresh application themselves.
For the Starmer government, this matters because it is trying to negotiate a wider “reset” with Europe. The UK wants closer cooperation with the EU on defence procurement, security, energy, trade and regulatory alignment. Starmer has repeatedly argued that closer ties with Europe are necessary for Britain’s economy and national security, particularly given the instability created by global conflicts and tensions with Russia.
There is growing discussion in London about Britain participating more closely in European defence programmes and aligning more closely with EU standards in certain sectors. The EU and UK have also both stated that the Withdrawal Agreement remains one of the foundations of their future relationship and must be implemented fully and faithfully.
For critics of the current system, the argument is straightforward: if Britain wants the goodwill of European governments, the European Parliament and EU institutions, it must show that it takes its legal commitments seriously. That could mean making it easier for eligible EU citizens and their family members to secure permanent rights, improving automatic transitions from pre-settled to settled status and reducing legal uncertainty around the EU Settlement Scheme.
The wider issue is one of credibility. International agreements are built on trust. If one side believes that treaty commitments are only partially implemented or narrowly interpreted, it becomes harder to negotiate future arrangements on security, trade or migration.
At the same time, supporters of the current Home Office approach argue that the UK is still implementing the Withdrawal Agreement, that millions of EU citizens have already secured status successfully and that the government has a legitimate right to verify who continues to qualify for those protections. They argue that maintaining immigration controls does not necessarily amount to a breach of treaty obligations.
What is clear is that the question is no longer only about Brexit. It is about Britain’s wider reputation as a treaty partner, especially at a time when the government is trying to deepen ties with Europe once again.