This is an editorial. It represents the view of the editors.

Britain's return to Erasmus+ in January 2027 is one of the most welcome education decisions of recent years. Erasmus is more than a funding scheme. It comes with a network of partner universities, recognised credits and decades of experience in getting students across borders. The government expects more than 100,000 people to benefit in the first year, without extra fees. That is worth the reported £570 million.

But two questions remain, and the answers matter as much as the headline.

One year is not a membership

The agreement covers only the 2027/28 academic year. Universities plan exchanges a year or more ahead, and students choose courses partly on the strength of the exchanges they offer. A programme that might disappear after one cohort is hard to build around. The government should commit to negotiating full participation in the EU's next programme period, not another single year.

Do not lose the rest of the world

After Brexit, the UK replaced Erasmus with the Turing scheme, which funds placements anywhere in the world, from universities in Asia to internships in Africa and the Americas. It was not perfect, and universities criticised parts of how it was run. But it did something Erasmus does not: it treated the whole world as a destination.

The government has said nothing about Turing's future. If it quietly lets the scheme lapse, students who want to study in Singapore, São Paulo or Nairobi will lose the support they had. That would be a strange outcome for a country that says it wants to be global.

The right answer

Rejoin Erasmus+ for the long term, and keep a smaller, well-run Turing strand for destinations outside Europe, focused on students from poorer backgrounds who are least able to fund a year abroad themselves. Both can coexist. Choosing one should not mean losing the other.

Sources