• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "David Whineray"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Western Europe",
    "United Kingdom"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

How Britain Can Shape Europe’s Foreign Policy After Brexit

Against a geopolitical backdrop of transatlantic divisions, Britain’s ability to lead European foreign policy after Brexit will ultimately depend on the strategic posture it chooses to adopt between Europe and the United States.

Link Copied
By David Whineray
Published on Feb 1, 2020

Source: Hill

This week sees the biggest shift in British foreign policy in almost 50 years, as the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. As an EU member, the UK shaped Europe’s foreign policy, from EU sanctions on Russia to the Iran nuclear deal. The UK wants to stay an influential European foreign policy power. But how can it outside the EU?

When European foreign ministers discussed Iran this month the Brits were there; in future they won’t be. The UK can still play a leading role in shaping Europe’s foreign policy after Brexit — but it will need to engage with Europe differently.

Up to 2016, British foreign policy was based on three pillars. First, Atlanticism. London routinely aligned with Washington on international issues and acted as a transatlantic bridge, explaining European views to the United States and vice versa. Second is leadership in the EU — specifically, the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). Third, multilateralism. As a medium-sized power with global interests, an effective rules-based international order was central to advancing British interests.

Each of these pillars is now challenged. First, Brexit takes the UK out of the CFSP. Second, the rules-based international order is being undermined by Russia, China and, to an extent, the U.S. Third, Washington’s transatlantic outlook under the Trump administration has become more nationalistic, transactional and mercantile, with skepticism — sometimes even hostility — toward the EU and NATO.

The English Channel and the Atlantic have both widened since 2016. The UK’s traditional diplomatic handling of foreign policy crises — align with Washington and shape the EU response — no longer applies. So how can the UK lead European foreign policy after Brexit? Through four new steps.

First, by doing more bilaterally with European counties — especially France and Germany. New summits, dialogues and agreements could be launched.

Second, by using meetings of other international groupings to coordinate European foreign policy positions and actions. The so-called “E3” (Germany, France and the UK) works well on Iran — Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Boris Johnson issued a joint statement on Soleimani — and could be expanded to other issues. The Group of Seven (G7) could play a bigger foreign policy role too. 

Third, as part of this year’s negotiations on the UK’s future trade and security relationship with the EU, London and Brussels could agree to close co-operation on foreign policy. Various new mechanisms are possible. French President Macron has suggested creating a European Security Council including the UK. Alternatively, the UK could occasionally be invited to attend meetings of EU foreign ministers, as John Kerry did as U.S. secretary of State. Joint UK-EU statements could even be considered if the UK and EU wanted to show a united stance – including to Moscow and Beijing – such as after a use of chemical weapons.

Fourth, by working closely with the EU in other international organizations, particularly the United Nations. This would also help bolster multilateralism, and show the UK remains globally orientated.

Europe should support these steps. In or out of the EU, the UK is a major European political and military power, and one of only two European nuclear states and permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. European views will pack more punch globally if the Brits are also on board. Growing transatlantic tensions also mean Brussels, Paris and Berlin should keep London within the European foreign policy orbit instead of seeing it adopt a more Trumpian outlook.

Against a geo-political backdrop of transatlantic divisions, Britain’s ability to lead European foreign policy after Brexit will ultimately depend on the strategic posture it chooses to adopt between Europe and the US. In short, will the UK align more with Washington on foreign policy after Brexit? Does the UK see its interests and values remaining European? Or will it adopt a policy of strategic equidistance?

Despite Brexit, since the 2016 referendum the UK has supported the EU, not the US, on major transatlantic disagreements — including Iran, trade, climate change and China. Brussels and Washington will look closely at whether this continues or changes. The UK wants trade deals with both.

This article was originally published in the Hill.

About the Author

David Whineray

Former Nonresident Fellow, Europe Program

David Whineray was a nonresident fellow in the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    How Europe Views Transatlantic Relations Ahead of the 2020 U.S. Election

      Erik Brattberg, David Whineray

  • Commentary
    The Pros and Cons of a European Security Council

      David Whineray

David Whineray
Former Nonresident Fellow, Europe Program
Foreign PolicyWestern EuropeUnited Kingdom

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • people watching smoke rising at sunrise from rooftops
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Bombing Campaigns Do Not Bring About Democracy. Nor Does Regime Change Without a Plan.

    Just look at Iraq in 1991.

      Marwan Muasher

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Iran and the New Geopolitical Moment

    A coalition of states is seeking to avert a U.S. attack, and Israel is in the forefront of their mind.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Baku Proceeds With Caution as Ethnic Azeris Join Protests in Neighboring Iran

    Baku may allow radical nationalists to publicly discuss “reunification” with Azeri Iranians, but the president and key officials prefer not to comment publicly on the protests in Iran.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Iran’s Woes Aren’t Only Domestic

    The country’s leadership is increasingly uneasy about multiple challenges from the Levant to the South Caucasus.

      Armenak Tokmajyan

  • A municipal employee raises the US flag among those of other nations in Sharm el-Sheikh, as the Egyptian Red Sea resort town gets ready to receive international leaders, following a Gaza ceasefire agreement, on October 11, 2025.
    Article
    The Tragedy of Middle Eastern Politics

    The countries of the region have engaged in sustained competition that has tested their capacities and limitations, while resisting domination by rivals. Can a more stable order emerge from this maelstrom, and what would it require?

      • Mohamed Ali Adraoui

      Hamza Meddeb, Mohamed Ali Adraoui

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.