The quest for a foreign policy ‘home turf’ after Brexit

In 2016, a majority of the British electorate voted to leave the European Union. Now, the UK had to find its new role in world politics outside the EU. In 2017, then Prime Minister Theresa May began this process by presenting a vision for a new and truly “Global Britain.” 

NUPI researchers Kristin Haugevik and Øyvind Svendsen recently published the article "On safer ground? The emergence and evolution of 'Global Britain'" in the high-ranking journal International Affairs. In this article, they investigate how the concept of “Global Britain” was used to shape the UK's foreign policy role after Brexit.

Svendsen explains that it was important for the May government to convey that they wouldn't isolate themselves after Brexit. The new and global Britain hadn't left the EU, it had entered the rest of the world.

“May claimed that Brexit offered more opportunities than limitations for UK foreign policy. Now, PM May argued, the UK was freer to enter into new international trade agreements," Haugevik adds.

• Read the article here (open access): On safer ground? The emergence and evolution of ‘Global Britain’

Finding new ground

The NUPI researchers argue that for the Conservative governments led by Theresa May and Boris Johnson, the narrative of “Global Britain” became a way to:

• counter international criticism and ridicule
• reassure the domestic audience
• give British foreign policy a new direction and framework

 "We wanted to investigate why and how the idea of 'Global Britain' developed; we didn't focus on what kind of idea Brexit was or whether this was a good or bad strategy," Svendsen clarifies.

The theoretical basis for the article rests on the idea that modern states are not only concerned with physical and material security but also with who they are or are perceived to be on the world stage. This concept is known as ontological security, which shapes foreign policy rhetoric and room for manoeuvring.

"When states feel that their identity is under pressure, they often resort to national narratives and concepts like 'Global Britain' to work towards restoring and stabilising their identity," Haugevik adds. 

So, how well did the "Global Britain" narrative work?

A broad and clean slate

"In the beginning, 'Global Britain' was vague and undefined. Britain wanted to enter into numerous trade agreements in many regions in a short amount of time. They talked about the whole world, but particularly the Indo-Pacific region," says Svendsen.

The UK needed new trade agreements after Brexit. Prime Minister May had declared that they were back on the world stage, especially in Asia. However, the work on trade agreements didn't go entirely as planned.

"It was a challenge for the UK that other states didn't perceive them as the trading powerhouse they presented themselves as. The UK promised more than it had resources to deliver post Brexit. And the major trade agreements stalled. That made it harder to sell the 'Global Britain' narrative," Svendsen explains.

Back home

Haugevik and Svendsen’s article shows how the "Global Britain" narrative shifted after 2017, both thematically and geographically: from international trade to security and defence, and from the Indo-Pacific to the Euro-Atlantic.

The researchers suggest that narratives on foreign policy identity are more effective when they are anchored in and revolve around thematic and empirical areas where the state already has an established track-record – so-called “home turfs.”

"We find that these two shifts provided the story of post-Brexit UK with increased credibility and power, both domestically and internationally. The UK was simply on more familiar ground by making these turns," Haugevik states. 

"As a trading partner, the UK didn't receive the recognition it desired, but in defence and security, they are a nuclear power and a significant voice in the European pillar of NATO," Svendsen adds.

Stirring engagement

The article has already garnered attention, and the researchers have received positive responses.

David Frost, the UK’s chief Brexit negotiator under Boris Johnson's government, was less impressed. He wrote on Twitter/X that the NUPI researchers' article is "a good example of the near-complete disconnect between actual foreign policy practitioners & academics writing about it."

"I don’t think he buys the terminology,” Svendsen comments.

“We argue that the UK experienced an identity crisis, and I understand that it can be hard to accept this premise for someone who played a central role in the process."

Nevertheless, he is happy that the article reaches all the way to those who worked to bring the vision of "Global Britain" to life, even if they don't necessarily agree with the analysis.