The case for a UK-EU resilience partnership

Jannike Wachowiak makes the case for a UK-EU resilience partnership as a way to both help the two sides be better prepared and able to respond to certain crises and to provide much needed impetus to the UK-EU reset. 

The first post-Brexit UK-EU summit, held in 2025, provided a roadmap of measures intended to soften the edges of the Brexit deal negotiated by Boris Johnson. The second is pencilled in for the summer, and its primary function is clear: to get ongoing talks on agrifood-trade, emission trading and a youth experience scheme over the line. Yet a summit that merely deals with outstanding business is one that is not doing its job. As well as closing negotiations already underway, it is important, not least to maintain a sense of momentum about the UK-EU ‘reset’, to lock the two sides into a continuing process.

Absent new ideas, it will be hard to avoid the impression that the reset is beginning to run out of steam. Various ideas have been suggested – ranging from the UK joining Creative Europe to a UK-EU Industrial Cooperation Council – that would build on the Common Understanding without crossing red lines.

Another idea that would fit the bill, and which has received precious little attention, is the possibility of forming a UK-EU ‘resilience partnership’ to ensure both sides are better prepared and able to respond to certain crises.

Pandemics, wars and climate emergencies like floods, wildfires and severe storms are increasingly common, and cannot be contained in one country. These externalities create precisely the kind of rationale that underpins cooperation among neighbours. What is more, the effects of these crises are increasingly visible to citizens. In 2025, Portugal and Spain experienced the worst wildfires since records began, and across England 6.3 million properties are based in areas at risk of flooding. And most of us have first-hand experience of a global pandemic. This should make crisis preparedness and response an uncontroversial area for cooperation.

And there is a global dimension to this. The Trump administration is pulling the US out of the multilateral global health and climate security systems, with significant cuts to domestic and international crisis prevention programmes. On the day of his inauguration, President Trump ordered the US’ withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, and a year later he announced the US would withdraw from another 66 international organisations, treaties and agencies, many of which are climate-related. This creates a clear need for Europeans to fill the vacuum bilaterally and globally.

Part of the response could be a ‘Resilience Partnership’ to enhance collective resilience and preparedness. This could have several components. The two sides might want to set up a dedicated ‘Health and Climate Security Dialogue ‘to both share information and explore how to build on existing cooperation, including the UK’s association to the EU’s Critical Medicines Alliances and medical research and innovation under the Horizon Programme.

The UK-EU Security and Defence Partnership from May 2025 encourages closer cooperation in these areas, but without going into specifics. The EU and Canada are already a step ahead, with a dedicated ‘Health Dialogue’ set up in 2021, and the promise of a ‘Climate Security Dialogue’ to share climate data and analysis. Given the global dimension, there could be an incentive to create links between the EU’s various dialogues with like-minded partners.

A dedicated EU-UK dialogue could be a launching pad for more formalised ties. For instance to consider whether to include the UK in the activities of the European Climate and Health Observatory. The observatory was set up in 2021, is managed by the Commission and European Environment Agency, and supports 38 members and cooperating countries in preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change on human health.

Another possibility would be UK association to the EU Civil Protection Programme. This helps to mobilise resources (like response teams and equipment) and knowledge to support countries affected by war and natural disasters. The largest operation to date has been in support of Ukraine, and the mechanism has also recently been used to coordinate consular support for citizens stranded in the Middle East.

The UK used to be an active and reliable member of the Civil Protection Programme and contributed to 14 emergency operations between 2014 and 2020. Post-Brexit, it could seek association. The programme is open to non-EU member states and includes ten participating countries ranging from Moldova to Norway to Ukraine.

Exploring a ‘Resilience Partnership’ along those lines would an easy win. It would give renewed impetus to the bilateral relationship and make it clear that the reset is ongoing. For the UK, it fits into the government’s preference for incremental progress and does not cross its red lines. For the EU, ‘resilience’ is one of four areas which it wants to see strengthened in its relations vis-à-vis the UK (as outlined in the Commission’s 2024-2029 political guidelines).

For both sides, it would be a pragmatic step forward which could be easily sold to the public. Last but not least, it would further build trust and provide a sense of solidarity which could help pave the ground for other steps further down the line.

By Jannike Wachowiak, Research Associate, UK in a Changing Europe.