• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "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 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump and Xi Are Angling for Three Years of Stability

    But their "principal to principal" model will only be as effective as the political strength of each leader back home.

      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

  • Recruit polices vow as they join in the police at Beijing Public Security Bureau on February 18, 2011 in Beijing, China. (
    Paper
    China’s Police and Security Cooperation Agreements

    China’s Ministry of Public Security is often portrayed as a domestic law enforcement agency, but it is also a global security actor. This paper explores how MPS has used international law enforcement and security cooperation agreements—over 200 since 2006—to advance China’s vision of security in a changing global environment.  

      • Sheena Chestnut Greitens

      Sophie Zhuang, Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Cameron Waltz

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Could Migrants From India and Africa Solve Russia’s Labor Shortage?

    The demands of the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine, demographic problems, and public hostility toward Central Asians mean Russia does not have enough workers.  

      Salavat Abylkalikov

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe Should Not Let Nuclear Nonproliferation Die

    Amid uncertainty caused by the Iran war, the global drive for nonproliferation has stalled. With Europe diplomatically marginalized and countries reassessing their nuclear options, efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons risk becoming irrelevant.

      • Jane Darby Menton

      Jane Darby Menton

  • Chinese President Xi Jinping interacts with U.S. President Donald Trump during a state banquet at the Great Hall of the People on May 14, 2026 in Beijing, China.
    Commentary
    Post U.S.-China Summit: Managed Instability

    The U.S.-China Summit produced a welcome commitment to build a constructive, strategically stable relationship. However, the United States has a full agenda, including the USMCA review beginning this week, that will likely target Chinese practices of concern. If China views these efforts as inconsistent with the agreements reached in Beijing, it may slow or halt progress in response. 

      • Barbara Weisel

      Barbara Weisel

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.